AT&T To Impose Caps, Overages

[lanbrown]

---

trparky wrote:

According to uVerse Real Time I've downloaded about 50 MBs in the last five minutes.  That's roughly 10 MBs a minute.

So, take the 250 GB cap and lets translate that into MBs.  250 GBs = 256,000 MBs.  Then we take 256,000 MBs and divide that by 10 MBs since on average, I download 10 MBs a minute.  That would mean that it would take roughly 25,600 minutes, or 426.67 hours, or 17.78 days for me to break the 250 GB cap.

---

And that is when you are actively using it, I doubt that you are downloading 10MB a minute every minute 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  The ones that do fall in that 2%.

[Loyal Servant]

A business pipe also has an SLA to go with it (service level agreement)

You don't.

It's not the pipe that costs money, it's the SLA.

Most pipes to businesses are actually identical in almost every way to residential ones.

You think that UVerse business uses some form of magical equipment that is somehow different?

It's all about the SLA on a business pipe.

[callmeox ACE - Wizard]

This looks like a great time to test drive the Clear (wimax) modem that was recenty offered to me.  I'm in a solid coverage zone, so it can't hurt. 

There's nothing magical about the service that AT&T offers, it is all just a commodity at this point.  If someone else can give me the same level of service more cheaply with no caps, I'm going to walk and not look back.

[lanbrown]

---

Loyal Servant wrote:

A business pipe also has an SLA to go with it (service level agreement)

You don't.

It's not the pipe that costs money, it's the SLA.

Most pipes to businesses are actually identical in almost every way to residential ones.

You think that UVerse business uses some form of magical equipment that is somehow different?

It's all about the SLA on a business pipe.

---

Not OpteMAN, it shares nothing with U-verse.  You are talking about apple and oranges here.  Unless U-verse business offers a 10GigE service, tell me what it shares?  OpteMAN is a Ethernet based service.  I suggest you do some research.

[Loyal Servant]

I know full well what it is.

I do this for a living.

Did you know that more than half of small/medium businesses still get internet access over more traditional means (DSL, cable,dial-up)?

The rest get Metro Ethernet/T# pipes.

The profit margins for AT&T and other carriers on a 'business DSL' plan is staggering.

Same for cable.

Believe it or not..... a T1 circuit now had some substantial profit margins....

The point is, the last mile connection is actually dirt cheap for the carriers in most situations and it's the SAME last mile connection that you or I have in our homes, with the exception of Metro E and a T-carrier circuit.

All they have to do is meet that SLA..... and that's not hard nowadays.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

trparky wrote:

According to uVerse Real Time I've downloaded about 50 MBs in the last five minutes.  That's roughly 10 MBs a minute.

So, take the 250 GB cap and lets translate that into MBs.  250 GBs = 256,000 MBs.  Then we take 256,000 MBs and divide that by 10 MBs since on average, I download 10 MBs a minute.  That would mean that it would take roughly 25,600 minutes, or 426.67 hours, or 17.78 days for me to break the 250 GB cap. 

---

You download 10 MB per minute 24x7?

[trparky]

OK, so we again take 250 GBs and translate it into MBs, that's 256,000 MBs. Then we take 256,000 MBs and divide that by 10 MBs since on average, I download 10 MBs a minute while we in the house are awake. So, 256,000 divided by 10 is 25,600. So this means that it would take me about 25,600 minutes to break the cap.

Now, we take into account the hours the household is sleeping. For the sake of arguing, let's say... roughly 8 hours. 8 times 60 is equal to 480 minutes. Now for an average month that's equal to (again, an average of 30 days) is 14,400 minutes.

Now, let's take the 25,600 number and subtract 14,400 from it, that's equal to 11,200 minutes that I'm (for the sake of arguing) using the Internet for on a daily basis in an average month.

Remember, this Internet connection is being used by two or three people on a daily basis. So during the waking hours, the Internet connection is used continuously.

Now, we take 11,200 minutes and translate that to hours, that's 186.67 hours. 186.67 hours equals 7 days.

So, on average in this three person Internet using household, it would take anywhere from 10 to fifteen days with normal usage to break the 250 GB cap. Now, if we decided to reduce the usage in my house by even a little bit, we'd still break the cap in 20 to 25 days.

It's people like me that this 250 GB cap is going to hurt quite a bit simply because we have multiple people using the Internet in the house. Now, let's consider the households that have more than three people in the house all using the Internet on a daily basis. Oh yeah, this is going to hurt... big time.

[twentw]

Once this has been implemented and everyone looks at their actual usage, I suspect this will be a non-issue.  By my calculation, you can stream 750kbps (not HD, but decent quality) video 24 hours for the entire month and not hit the cap.  I have 8 computers in my house with 4 users, download a lot, stream many Netflix movies (and other things) in HD, and I doubt I've ever come close to the cap.  This is the same cap that Comcast has had for years, and I heard very little complaint about it after it was implemented.  (Before it was implemented, the reaction was identical to this thread).

[sgodfrey2000]

What I find interesting is that AT&T just made available for "free" streaming HBO content. So if AT&T is afraid of streaming TV services over the internet, why HBO for free???????

I think is it simple $$$$$. AT&T as a company has always had the old monopoly attitude (I worked for them for 31 years). And Southwestern Bell is from the same gene pool as old Ma Bell. They think they can just bilk a captive audience. Sure a percent will leave. But AT&T probably figures they will not be hurt. Plus by AT&T offering all these "free" streaming services, the ones that stay over time will reach the cap and pay more to keep what they have, streaming TV over AT&T U Verse.

[trparky]

Just in the last 45 minutes, I've downloaded nearly 183 MBs and uploaded 8 MBs.  That's roughly 191 MBs in 45 minutes.  So in an average hour, that comes out to be about anywhere from 200 to 250 MBs an hour.

Eep!

[chribrian]

I have three way's to watch Netflix. 2 computers and 1 internet connected TV. The last 3 day's my family of 4 used 80Gb with simple browsing, HD streaming and downloading VOD to my Directv DVR. I will be leaving for sure.

[trparky]

---

chribrian wrote:

I have three way's to watch Netflix. 2 computers and 1 internet connected TV. The last 3 day's my family of 4 used 80Gb with simple browsing, HD streaming and downloading VOD to my Directv DVR. I will be leaving for sure.

---

Your family definitely sounds like an average high-tech family, one that has all the digital gadgets and uses them to their full extent.  Kind of like my family.

Except in my case, I don't really use NetFlix.  Rarely I use it but with my want to get a Blu-Ray player than has a NetFlix client in it, I can see my usage approaching your usage.

Again... EEP!

[lanbrown]

---

Loyal Servant wrote:

I know full well what it is.

I do this for a living.

Did you know that more than half of small/medium businesses still get internet access over more traditional means (DSL, cable,dial-up)?

The rest get Metro Ethernet/T# pipes.

The profit margins for AT&T and other carriers on a 'business DSL' plan is staggering.

Same for cable.

Believe it or not..... a T1 circuit now had some substantial profit margins....

The point is, the last mile connection is actually dirt cheap for the carriers in most situations and it's the SAME last mile connection that you or I have in our homes, with the exception of Metro E and a T-carrier circuit.

All they have to do is meet that SLA..... and that's not hard nowadays.

---

The last mile is the same with the exception of Metro E and T-carrier?  Boy do you have that wrong.  Metro E is different but a T1 is actually two-pair these days and they even have a DSL flavor.  It looks like a T1, but it isn't a T1.  Lastly, you forgot about SONET.  Sorry, no copper found there!

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

trparky wrote:

Just in the last 45 minutes, I've downloaded nearly 183 MBs and uploaded 8 MBs.  That's roughly 191 MBs in 45 minutes.  So in an average hour, that comes out to be about anywhere from 200 to 250 MBs an hour.

---

You have to remember that UVRT shows total data transferred on each Ethernet port without regard to the destination of that traffic.

If a comptuer on Ethernet port 1 communicates with a computer on Ethernet port 2, that traffic raises the counters on both of those ports, but none of that data counts against your Internet cap because none of that data came from or went to the Internet.

You also cannot really use the VDSL line data counter by itself to look at Internet traffic, because that counter contains the combination of Internet traffic and IPTV traffic, and IPTV traffic does not count against your cap.

I will be adding a feature to UVRT that will enable pure Internet traffic counting.  However, to make it work, you will have to hook up your network such that all of your Internet traffic is funneled through one Ethernet port on the RG.  Usually this will mean you will have to use your own wireless router or your own switch and wireless access point behind the RG.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

trparky wrote:

OK, so we again take 250 GBs and translate it into MBs, that's 256,000 MBs. Then we take 256,000 MBs and divide that by 10 MBs since on average, I download 10 MBs a minute while we in the house are awake. So, 256,000 divided by 10 is 25,600. So this means that it would take me about 25,600 minutes to break the cap.

Now, we take into account the hours the household is sleeping. For the sake of arguing, let's say... roughly 8 hours. 8 times 60 is equal to 480 minutes. Now for an average month that's equal to (again, an average of 30 days) is 14,400 minutes.

Now, let's take the 25,600 number and subtract 14,400 from it, that's equal to 11,200 minutes that I'm (for the sake of arguing) using the Internet for on a daily basis in an average month.

Remember, this Internet connection is being used by two or three people on a daily basis. So during the waking hours, the Internet connection is used continuously.

Now, we take 11,200 minutes and translate that to hours, that's 186.67 hours. 186.67 hours equals 7 days.

So, on average in this three person Internet using household, it would take anywhere from 10 to fifteen days with normal usage to break the 250 GB cap. Now, if we decided to reduce the usage in my house by even a little bit, we'd still break the cap in 20 to 25 days.

It's people like me that this 250 GB cap is going to hurt quite a bit simply because we have multiple people using the Internet in the house. Now, let's consider the households that have more than three people in the house all using the Internet on a daily basis. Oh yeah, this is going to hurt... big time.

---

Humm.  I'm not sure I understand how you did your calculations, but this is what I come up with.  Tell me if you think this makes sense:

250 GB  = 256,000 MB

256,000 MB/10 MB per minute = 25,600 minutes of internet usage available

25,600 minutes/60 = 427 hours of internet usage per month available

427 hours/30 days = 14 hours per day of internet use available

I assume that with work, school, outside activities, etc, that people may not be home an average of 14 hours per day?

[trparky]

I have all my Internet data go through Ethernet Port #4. I'm taking my readings based upon what your program says for Ethernet Port #4. For Wireless I use my own AP which again is fed off of Port 4.

[chribrian]

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

---

trparky wrote:

Just in the last 45 minutes, I've downloaded nearly 183 MBs and uploaded 8 MBs.  That's roughly 191 MBs in 45 minutes.  So in an average hour, that comes out to be about anywhere from 200 to 250 MBs an hour.

---

You have to remember that UVRT shows total data transferred on each Ethernet port without regard to the destination of that traffic.

If a comptuer on Ethernet port 1 communicates with a computer on Ethernet port 2, that traffic raises the counters on both of those ports, but none of that data counts against your Internet cap because none of that data came from or went to the Internet.

You also cannot really use the VDSL line data counter by itself to look at Internet traffic, because that counter contains the combination of Internet traffic and IPTV traffic, and IPTV traffic does not count against your cap.

I will be adding a feature to UVRT that will enable pure Internet traffic counting.  However, to make it work, you will have to hook up your network such that all of your Internet traffic is funneled through one Ethernet port on the RG.  Usually this will mean you will have to use your own wireless router or your own switch and wireless access point behind the RG.

---

If you only have Internet service is the VDSL line counter accurate ?

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

trparky wrote:
I have all my Internet data go through Ethernet Port #4. I'm taking my readings based upon what your program says for Ethernet Port #4. For Wireless I use my own AP which again is fed off of Port 4.

---

OK, good, this is exactly how you need to have it set up to measure the traffic.

My plan is to expand the basic traffic counting that's given on the Interfaces tab, and add the following capability:

• Ability to tell UVRT which Ethernet port all your Internet devices are connected to.

• Ability to tell UVRT what your billing date is so that the counter auto-resets on that day of the month.

• Graphical representations of the amount of data transferred per several different periods of time.

• Logging of all data collected for historical purposes.

• Ability to see the data transfer numbers and graphs via the built-in web server.

[Loyal Servant]

When it comes to UVerse, cable or DSL the last mile is absolutely the same.

It's a piece of coax or a couple of pairs.

I am not talking about SONET - who is going to get that pulled into their house let alone their neighborhood?

These are 2 totally different animals.

Business UVerse is no different than the UVerse I have here at home.

The ONLY difference (other than the price) is in most cases whether or not there is an SLA.

I have already inquired about it... there is very little difference otherwise.

So my question is, why is the US creeping towards being dead last in a race that was started here?

As long as people are not affected directly by things they do not care about it.

Now AT&T is arguing that 2% of users are consuming for the remaining 98% of us and to 'save' the remaining 98% they have to place a cap on service, which effectively reduces it's value.

So, now you have tiered speeds for a price AND consumption based billing.

What if I told you that gas stations were going to start charging a fee to pull up to the pump in addition to pumping the gas you will consume.

You would be upset, correct?

How is this any different?

If they want to raise the price, fine.

If they want to charge by usage, fine.

Then drop the stupid tiered speeds and open my pipe up and charge me for what I use.

Don't dance around the issue, just DO IT.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

chribrian wrote:

If you only have Internet service is the VDSL line counter accurate ?

---

Yes, the VDSL line counters are accurate if you have Internet-only service.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

trparky wrote:

Just in the last 45 minutes, I've downloaded nearly 183 MBs and uploaded 8 MBs.  That's roughly 191 MBs in 45 minutes.  So in an average hour, that comes out to be about anywhere from 200 to 250 MBs an hour.

Eep!

---

Hey!  That's much less than your earlier 10 MB per minute calculation.  250 MB/60 = 4.167 MB per minute

That would give you 61,435 minute of internet usage available per month (256,000 MB/4.167 MB).  This would translate to 1,023 hours per month or 34 hour per day (i.e. more hours than are in a day!).

[Loyal Servant]

SomeJoe: Was the data I sent you in any way helpful regarding the iNID?

[lanbrown]

---

Loyal Servant wrote:

When it comes to UVerse, cable or DSL the last mile is absolutely the same.

It's a piece of coax or a couple of pairs.

I am not talking about SONET - who is going to get that pulled into their house let alone their neighborhood?

These are 2 totally different animals.

Business UVerse is no different than the UVerse I have here at home.

The ONLY difference (other than the price) is in most cases whether or not there is an SLA.

I have already inquired about it... there is very little difference otherwise.

So my question is, why is the US creeping towards being dead last in a race that was started here?

As long as people are not affected directly by things they do not care about it.

Now AT&T is arguing that 2% of users are consuming for the remaining 98% of us and to 'save' the remaining 98% they have to place a cap on service, which effectively reduces it's value.

So, now you have tiered speeds for a price AND consumption based billing.

What if I told you that gas stations were going to start charging a fee to pull up to the pump in addition to pumping the gas you will consume.

You would be upset, correct?

How is this any different?

If they want to raise the price, fine.

If they want to charge by usage, fine.

Then drop the stupid tiered speeds and open my pipe up and charge me for what I use.

Don't dance around the issue, just DO IT.

---

You are the one that said:

"The point is, the last mile connection is actually dirt cheap for the carriers in most situations and it's the SAME last mile connection that you or I have in our homes, with the exception of Metro E and a T-carrier circuit. "

SONET is nothing but fiber, so chances are, there is already fiber close by your home.  Since most of the DSLAMS they have are fed by fiber, so they already have FTTN.  So far your batting average is pretty low.  How about FTTP customers?  They have fiber to the house!

 "What if I told you that gas stations were going to start charging a fee to pull up to the pump in addition to pumping the gas you will consume."

Never been to NJ or a full service pump before?  Technically they are charging you a fee to pull up to the pump!

Why raise the price for all when it is better to raise the price for those 2% which is exactly what they are doing.

I do agree that the speed tiers are kind of pointless or that different speeds should have different caps.  If you have the 24Mbps, then you should have a higher cap.  The 1.5 and 3Mbps should have a far lower cap if than the others.  Right now, if someone has the 6Mbps package and they go over, that extra $10 is still cheaper than a faster speed package.  In some ways, if they want to have speed tiers, it would make more sense to make is cheaper to upgrade to the faster package with more transfer than pay the overage.

[Rekrul]

When I signed up for U-Verse I specifically asked about usage caps and was assured in no uncertain terms, by several different people that AT&T DID NOT and WOULD NOT impose usage caps on my account. Although the employees were most likely telling the truth to the best of their knowledge at the time, I can't help but feel that I was lied to. When I recently upgraded from 6Mbs service to 12Mbs, AT&T was only too happy to take my money and I don't recall them mentioning anything about "network congestion". For them to now tell me that they need to impose a usage cap, is tantamount to them saying that they can't support the level of service that they sold me. If that's the case, someone please explain to me why the {Content edited} they're offering 18 & 24Mbs service, if they can't even let me use my 12Mbs account to the fullest. If and when this goes into effect, I'd better see a significant reduction on my bill to coincide with the significant reduction in my service. If AT&T thinks I'm going to continue to pay the same price for a service that's been reduced from what I originally agreed to, they've got rocks in their heads! It's clear that this move is intended to choke off online video options such as Netflix in order to preserve their TV business from the "cord cutters". My other main option for broadband service is Cablevision and so far they claim that the have no caps. If this goes through, and AT&T refuses to "grandfather" my account as unlimited, I'll be canceling my U-Verse account and giving Optimum Online a try. Failing that, I'll look for a DSL provider in my area that doesn't have caps. {Content Edited}, I'll look into paying someone else for a business level account rather than continue to give money to a backstabbing company like AT&T. The ironic part is that when I called the customer service number today, the woman I spoke to said she didn't believe that AT&T would impose caps, since that's what drove a lot of their customers to choose them in the first place. Now they're doing the same and driving away customers. AT&T can take their caps and shove 'em. I want the account I was *PROMISED* when I signed up.

[richbpark]

Here is the announcement as it appeared in the Washington Post:

AT&T announced that it will impose a limit on DSL data usage on its customers and start charging those who exceed that limit. The cap, which will go into effect May 2, will be 150 GB per month for DSL customers and 250 GB per month for the company’s U-Verse customers. The Wall Street Journal those who exceed the limit more than three times in one month will be charged $10 for every 50GB over the limit.

My only other alternative to AT&T is the cable service provider.  Since AT&T is both a service provider and content provider they are assuming a proprietary and yet and unregulated role that appears to be aimed at their competitors.  If this is not a monopolistic practice then it is very close to it. It is an unfair business practice  {Keep it Relevant} This goes against the notion of an open Internet and with the United States lagging significantly behind other nations (number 16 globally) in Internet price performance this very much a move that will further reduce the United States' position in the global communications arena.  AT&T's service is abysmal compared to Korea's plans of have 1GB/Sec by 2012

http://gigaom.com/2009/02/01/by-2012-koreans-will-get-a-gigabit-per-second-broadband-connection/

AT&T embarrasses the United States and this proprietary announcement reflects a Colonial Internet philosophy that is unacceptable in today's economy.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

Loyal Servant wrote:

SomeJoe: Was the data I sent you in any way helpful regarding the iNID?

---

Yes, very much so, thank you.

I will probably be able to count data from all interfaces on the iNID, including Ethernet, HPNA1 (coax), and HPNA2 (twisted pair to the i38HG).  I cannot count the individual ports on the i38HG though.

The problem with the iNID will be separating all the IPTV services from the Internet services.  You will have to have all DVR/STBs on one of the 3 interfaces, and all computers on another.  But because the iNID is outside the house, it is more difficult to reconfigure the network to meet this requirement.

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

!?!

[Rekrul]

I apologize for the lack of paragraphs in my preceding message. For some reason, the forum decided to run everything together. I'd also like to note that this is probably the slowest forum with the least amount of features that I've seen in years.

[Loyal Servant]

When I talk about the last mile I am talking about the last mile that is common among both the residence and the business.

Both (generally) have access to POTS and cable.

I am not trying to get into a SONET vs UVerse debate because that is like comparing a Cadillac and a Yugo.

They just don't fit and nobody *I* know is going to consider SONET a 'last mile' solution.

I am actualy from NY... so I know all about NJ and full serve

That's the law there... yes I think it's dumb but despite that gas is still cheaper there......

So my point about the 'last mile' tech that referring to cable and dsl technologies.

The bells have it good because of all the copper they have in the ground going to houses and that copper isn't shared like cable is, obviously.

AT&T has done a great deal of work upgrading their network.

In my area it was BellSouth that started doing it and it was already in place when they did the merger/buyout/whateveritwas.

They just did not turn it on, and the irony is that the VRADS in my town have been there for just over 3 years.

They only started turning them on within the last year... so not only did they spend the money on the tech they let it sit there for years, literally.

Now they turn our area on, and advertise unlimited service ith tiered speeds just to change it 2 weeks after they sign up half our development.

I still think it's a load of crap and it's essentially double dipping.

[Loyal Servant]

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

---

Loyal Servant wrote:

SomeJoe: Was the data I sent you in any way helpful regarding the iNID?

---

Yes, very much so, thank you.

I will probably be able to count data from all interfaces on the iNID, including Ethernet, HPNA1 (coax), and HPNA2 (twisted pair to the i38HG).  I cannot count the individual ports on the i38HG though.

The problem with the iNID will be separating all the IPTV services from the Internet services.  You will have to have all DVR/STBs on one of the 3 interfaces, and all computers on another.  But because the iNID is outside the house, it is more difficult to reconfigure the network to meet this requirement.

---

Cool.

I see why you can't break out the 4 ports on the i38 - they only count packets per port

The only reason I have the STBs on Ethernet is so I have the choice of moving a STB around the house with no difficulty.

I don't have the whole house wired coax, unfortunately.

The techs that installed this told me that they are only doing coax installs with the iNID.

I don't know if that holds true everywhere but if that is how they are doing it then it should be easy to separate the two sets of data, no?