May 2nd 250 GB Cap On Uverse Internet - Myusage.att.com

[jmsherman8]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

Maru,

   They are probably trying to get people to resign there contracts with ATT BEFORE they release the bandwidth meter. They are hoping that the increase in price at the end of the first term and no bandwidth meter / cap will lull people into a false sense of security, which will make them more likely to resign with ATT under the new TOS so that they are at least locked into a cap for a solid year. Otherwise they are seeing a mass exodus. My advice get away from ATT ASAP.

---

That advice makes NO sense.  I've explaied already for ME the choice is a no brainer. The ONLY competitor in my service area has service and features so far beneath ATT Uverse that it would be a DISASTER to switch. I've also stated that the conventional cable companies simply cannot compete for quality with either Verizon FIOS or ATT Uverse.  The ONLY ISP customers who may have a choice are those with Verizon Fios operating in the same local service area as ATT Uverse.

Consumer Reports recently surveyed their 70,000 customers and they gave a rsounding approval of ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS tieing for # 1 compared to all the rest of the competition.  If 98% of ATT Uverse customers are not affected at all by the caps, they, especially, would make a huge error in switching.

Frankly, that kind of advice here has probably seriously harmed those folks, who were convinced to switch, and now are regretting their move.  To get back to ATT Uverse they will now have to pay instllation charges again plus the installatin charges they already paid to the ISP where they just moved.

Right now the only thing ATT has to do is it get their bandwidth meters working.  Without them all of us are positioning ourselves as high bandwidth users when 98% of us are really low bandwidth users.not subject ot any extra charges.

---

Maru,

   Actually IF you are a high bandwidth user the advice is very sound. Because IF  you lock yourself into a contract then YOU are subject to ATT term fee's to get out of that contract. Now if you were just doing a bit of usage above the cap you may be right, but if it turns out that you are blowing the cap out, you are much much much better staying out of contract so that you can move services. Also if business class comcast is available in that area it is roughly the same cost as UVERSE residential. NOW THAT IS  A NO BRAINER.

[jmsherman8]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

AT&T shouldn't be charging anyone for what the meter shows right now anyway. The meter is wildly inaccurate and no where near real time.

---

How do you know if the meter is incaccurate if you cannot read it?  So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

Personally, I think the ATT meters will be very accurate since they probably purchased the code from Comcast where they have been tested for THREE YEARS.  The 3rd party meters now under development, which have never had alpha or beta tests for three years, are probably much more INACCURATE and will be so for at least for one year after introduction.

That is also why I recommended a few posts above that there should be an alternate charge plan having unlimited usage.  Then the charges would not be dependent on any meters to calculate the charges.

It is also very likely that the delay in the meter implementation may have something to do with testing and validation to improve their accuracy.  Testing on millions of customers will have a much better accuracy outcome than a 3rd party meter being tested on a few dozen installations.

---

ATT wouldn't purchase the code from Comcast, and Comcast most certainly would not sell it to them in most cases BECAUSE it is considered intellectual property.

[jt4703]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

AT&T shouldn't be charging anyone for what the meter shows right now anyway. The meter is wildly inaccurate and no where near real time.

---

How do you know if the meter is inaccurate if you cannot read it?  So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

Personally, I think the ATT meters will be very accurate since they probably purchased the code from Comcast where they have been tested for THREE YEARS.  The 3rd party meters now under development, which have never had alpha or beta tests for three years, are probably much more INACCURATE and will be so for at least for one year after introduction.

That is also why I recommended a few posts above that there should be an alternate charge plan having unlimited usage.  Then the charges would not be dependent on any meters to calculate the charges.

It is also very likely that the delay in the meter implementation may have something to do with testing and validation to improve their accuracy.  Testing on millions of customers will have a much better accuracy outcome than a 3rd party meter being tested on a few dozen installations.

---

I CAN access my meter since about mid-march and NONE of the totals for any of the date ranges, or more recently individual days, are anywhere near the same amounts both of my meters I have running on my end for the same date ranges/days. I have one machine connected to the internet, wireless is turned off, and both bandwidth meters that run on my machine are within .01mb of one another, however the AT&T meter is 2-4GB over per day or 15-25GB over on the past data that was collected in "weekly" ranges.

[bubbba]

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

AT&T shouldn't be charging anyone for what the meter shows right now anyway. The meter is wildly inaccurate and no where near real time.

---

How do you know if the meter is incaccurate if you cannot read it?  So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

Personally, I think the ATT meters will be very accurate since they probably purchased the code from Comcast where they have been tested for THREE YEARS.  The 3rd party meters now under development, which have never had alpha or beta tests for three years, are probably much more INACCURATE and will be so for at least for one year after introduction.

That is also why I recommended a few posts above that there should be an alternate charge plan having unlimited usage.  Then the charges would not be dependent on any meters to calculate the charges.

It is also very likely that the delay in the meter implementation may have something to do with testing and validation to improve their accuracy.  Testing on millions of customers will have a much better accuracy outcome than a 3rd party meter being tested on a few dozen installations.

---

ATT wouldn't purchase the code from Comcast, and Comcast most certainly would not sell it to them in most cases BECAUSE it is considered intellectual property.

---

I agree, Comcast wouldn't sell their meter. Plus, AT&T would never want it. But even if for some strange reason they did, it's not like a plug-n-play device. So many changes would have to be made to the code that it would be faster and easier to start from scratch. It's not like both Comcast and AT&T networks are clones of each others.

[sirmaru]

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

Maru,

   Actually IF you are a high bandwidth user the advice is very sound. Because IF  you lock yourself into a contract then YOU are subject to ATT term fee's to get out of that contract. Now if you were just doing a bit of usage above the cap you may be right, but if it turns out that you are blowing the cap out, you are much much much better staying out of contract so that you can move services. Also if business class comcast is available in that area it is roughly the same cost as UVERSE residential. NOW THAT IS  A NO BRAINER.

---

The only alternate ISP in my area is Charter.  That IS my ONLY choice.  Most of us only have one or two choices of ISP in our local areas.  Plus, I have never had a contract with ATT Uverse.  To move to Charter would REQUIRE a contract.

As the Consumer Reports survey of 70,000 customers make very clear, anyone NOT using ATT Uverse or Verizon FIOS is getting MUCH WORSE service and features.  I trust CR more than anyone here to evaluate our choices.

You also state:

" ATT wouldn't purchase the code from Comcast, and Comcast most certainly would not sell it to them in most cases BECAUSE it is considered intellectual property."

LICENSING of intellectual property is done all the time.   Otherwise, none of us would be allowed to run Windows 7.

@jt4703: You stated: "I CAN access my meter since about mid-march and NONE of the totals for any of the date ranges, or more recently individual days, are anywhere near the same amounts both of my meters I have running on my end for the same date ranges/days. I have one machine connected to the internet, wireless is turned off, and both bandwidth meters that run on my machine are within .01mb of one another, however the AT&T meter is 2-4GB over per day or 15-25GB over on the past data that was collected in "weekly" ranges."

Have you yet exceded your 150 Gb per month cap?  I assume you are a DSL user since I havn't noticed any Uverse users report their bandwidth usage here yet.  What meters are you using to verify ATT's meter?  There is no guarantee any commerial 3rd party meter is accurate either.  In fact most of them are probably a lot less accurate than ATT's meter since it is likely ATT licenses theiir meter software from Comcast which has tested it for THREE YEARS and those other meters are being offered by much smaller companies without large alpha and beta test users.

In fact it is very likely that ATT has been doing their own testing on their bandwidth meters for at least 6 weeks now since their first public announcement of the caps.  The delays in introduction are probably related to testing and validating on MILLIONS of their customers as we speak.  No 3rd party meters have millions of customers to the best of my knowledge.  I could be wrong there. If you know of one tested on millions of customers for at least a year which has been proved not to clash with most other software, I'd like to know it's name.  I may buy a copy myself to verify ATT's meter.

@bubba: you stated: "I agree, Comcast wouldn't sell their meter. Plus, AT&T would never want it. But even if for some strange reason they did, it's not like a plug-n-play device. So many changes would have to be made to the code that it would be faster and easier to start from scratch. It's not like both Comcast and AT&T networks are clones of each others. "

I said up above the meter software was probably LICENSED.  And you are CORRECT again.  All those delays we are seeing are probably due to customization, testing and validation to meet ATT's special needs.  Even if ATT developed their own unique metering software instead of taking the shortcut of licensing from Comcast, there could still be many unexpected delays in implementation.  That's why neither you nor I can read our own meters yet.  Hopefully, they will go live before 2012.  Maybe its better they take longer and don't subject us to the new caps for as long as possible.

[jamiedolan]

---

bld522 wrote:

---

jamiedolan wrote:

So as long as I keep seeing this message:

We're sorry, but we're unable to display your AT&T U-verse Internet usage at this time.
However, usage for any previous AT&T DSL service may be available for viewing.

Does that mean I am safe to use all I want and I will not get a suprise bill when they do turn on the meter?

Thanks

Jamie

---

I wouldn't necessarily jump to that conclusion.  I just checked my historical data and it's current through 5/7.  So I assume the caps still apply to me even though I too cannot see my current internet usage at the moment.

---

That's disappointing.  I started some downloads that I really needed to get done for backup purposes.  My DSL had problems for 2 full weeks prior to getting DSL so it has been more than a month since I have backed up my web sites.

I checked in the router modem and it currently reports:

Transmit	71873418095
Receive	78835623181

Which I calculate out to:

Transmit: 66.93

Receive: 73.42

Total: 140.35GB

However, I look at the U-Verse Real Time program and I see:

Internet VDSL line:

Total Data Out: 71.9 GB

Total Data In: 79.0 GB

Total: 150.9GB

Why would one number be off by over 10 full GB, nearly 10%???  I would have though it was pulling the information from the exact same place.

By the time the uploads and downloads I'm working right now on are finished, (late tonight or tomorrow), I'm going to be right about 200GB by the 10th of the month, 14 days after my service was installed

Does anyone know if this is calculated on a calendar month or based on your billing cycle?

Thanks

Jamie

[jamiedolan]

---

bubbba wrote:

---

As the TOS stated, the fee doesn't kick in until you go over for 3 months. So it will be a while before anyone is charged anything.

---

Do I understand this correctly that I can use any amount I want for 3 months without being charged?  So if I use 2TB a month for the next 3 months, I'll be okay, it's just that 4th month that I am going to get a bill?

Jamie

[jamiedolan]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

---

Here is my complaint:

My DSL USE for the Past Couple Months, prior to U-Verse:

It would have been much higher, but the DSL uplink was so slow, I could never get the stuff uploaded that I needed to.  Plus with the DSL whever I was uplolading it hosed the whole connection and nothing else worked, I could not view Netflix and could barely check e-mail.

Now I can do most things while I am uploading, Netflix is still slow and paused about 6 times during a movie last night to load.  I'm on the 18MB plan.

Jamie

[sirmaru]

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

---

Here is my complaint:

My DSL USE for the Past Couple Months, prior to U-Verse:

It would have been much higher, but the DSL uplink was so slow, I could never get the stuff uploaded that I needed to.  Plus with the DSL whever I was uplolading it hosed the whole connection and nothing else worked, I could not view Netflix and could barely check e-mail.

Now I can do most things while I am uploading, Netflix is still slow and paused about 6 times during a movie last night to load.  I'm on the 18MB plan.

Jamie

---

Are you still on DSL or did you switch to Uverse?  If you are having technical problems with your service, you should call ATT technical support and have them come to your residence to fix the problems.

Are those meters you are showing, the ATT meters?  It appears your router meter, your UVRT meter and your ATT meter all have different numbers from your previous post.  Are the covered dates all the same?

If all the meters for the same covered time periiod are all different, I can see why we cannot see the ATT Uverse meters yet.  There appears to be a lot more work required on all the different meters before they will ever agree. However, if the covered time periods are all different, the meters will never agree on anything.

If you are still using DSL and are over the 150 Gb per month cap, you will have to either pay the $ 10 per month per 50 Gb overage fee or cut back on your bandwidth use.  Another option would be to switch to Uverse and up your cap to 250 Gb per month which would place you within the limits.

[bld522]

---

bubbba wrote:

That is not exactly what mine states. I wish mine was this clear. Here's mine:

--

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

--

---

Interesting AT&T would choose to use different wording for its DSL customers and it's U-verse customers.  I guess we'll find out what their plan is soon enough.

[ryanmercer]

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

AT&T shouldn't be charging anyone for what the meter shows right now anyway. The meter is wildly inaccurate and no where near real time.

---

How do you know if the meter is incaccurate if you cannot read it?  So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

Personally, I think the ATT meters will be very accurate since they probably purchased the code from Comcast where they have been tested for THREE YEARS.  The 3rd party meters now under development, which have never had alpha or beta tests for three years, are probably much more INACCURATE and will be so for at least for one year after introduction.

That is also why I recommended a few posts above that there should be an alternate charge plan having unlimited usage.  Then the charges would not be dependent on any meters to calculate the charges.

It is also very likely that the delay in the meter implementation may have something to do with testing and validation to improve their accuracy.  Testing on millions of customers will have a much better accuracy outcome than a 3rd party meter being tested on a few dozen installations.

---

ATT wouldn't purchase the code from Comcast, and Comcast most certainly would not sell it to them in most cases BECAUSE it is considered intellectual property.

---

Um and the whole fact that comcast doesn't have to seperate out the TV, VOD, VOIP, etc.

[bubbba]

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

bubbba wrote:

---

As the TOS stated, the fee doesn't kick in until you go over for 3 months. So it will be a while before anyone is charged anything.

---

Do I understand this correctly that I can use any amount I want for 3 months without being charged?  So if I use 2TB a month for the next 3 months, I'll be okay, it's just that 4th month that I am going to get a bill?

Jamie

---

I think 2TB is excessive, but as I read the TOS that is correct. You get 3 warnings before being charged any fees. Read it for yourself, but 2TB may be deemed excessive use per the AUP.

[Infernal]

---

bubbba wrote:

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

bubbba wrote:

---

As the TOS stated, the fee doesn't kick in until you go over for 3 months. So it will be a while before anyone is charged anything.

---

Do I understand this correctly that I can use any amount I want for 3 months without being charged?  So if I use 2TB a month for the next 3 months, I'll be okay, it's just that 4th month that I am going to get a bill?

Jamie

---

I think 2TB is excessive, but as I read the TOS that is correct. You get 3 warnings before being charged any fees. Read it for yourself, but 2TB may be deemed excessive use per the AUP.

---

Just out of pure curiosity, what are you planning to do with 2TB worth of data usage (piracy, obsessively online backup everyday, streaming videos 24/7 not withstanding...)

[jjShard]

Jeez, it feels like the Mafia has taken over the US residential Internet market.  You do what we tell you, pay what we say, and like it. Not a joke any more. 

Caps are catching on.  Customers are demanding they be applied everywhere..

New water usage caps from your city government.  When you use too much water, we cut you off and let you die of thirst (not really, you can always buy bottled water or move to another state).

Electricity caps:  Exceed the cap by mid-month and sit in darkness until the next billing cycle starts.  Invest in a candle shop.

Gasoline caps: You get X gallons per month.  Sorry if you had to drive your grandmother to the hospital and back.  No excuse. Caps are caps.

Food caps:  Think Soviet bread lines.  Line up for bread.  Line up the occasionaly slice of beef. 

Internet caps:  Microsoft releases most of its software and updates via downloads.  Will the release of Windows 8 help ATT make money on overages?  Bingo.

Well, lets see. If I stand in a bread line, get my water from the community tap, conserve gasoline in old wine bottles, and utilize candles only when necessary, then perhaps I can survive the coming economic and social ice age that ATT and Charter and Time Warner and Comcast have initiated. 

It it was heard around the table:  250 GB it is then, agreed?  Agreed! said all.   The new mafia.

[jmsherman8]

---

bubbba wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

AT&T shouldn't be charging anyone for what the meter shows right now anyway. The meter is wildly inaccurate and no where near real time.

---

How do you know if the meter is incaccurate if you cannot read it?  So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

Personally, I think the ATT meters will be very accurate since they probably purchased the code from Comcast where they have been tested for THREE YEARS.  The 3rd party meters now under development, which have never had alpha or beta tests for three years, are probably much more INACCURATE and will be so for at least for one year after introduction.

That is also why I recommended a few posts above that there should be an alternate charge plan having unlimited usage.  Then the charges would not be dependent on any meters to calculate the charges.

It is also very likely that the delay in the meter implementation may have something to do with testing and validation to improve their accuracy.  Testing on millions of customers will have a much better accuracy outcome than a 3rd party meter being tested on a few dozen installations.

---

ATT wouldn't purchase the code from Comcast, and Comcast most certainly would not sell it to them in most cases BECAUSE it is considered intellectual property.

---

I agree, Comcast wouldn't sell their meter. Plus, AT&T would never want it. But even if for some strange reason they did, it's not like a plug-n-play device. So many changes would have to be made to the code that it would be faster and easier to start from scratch. It's not like both Comcast and AT&T networks are clones of each others.

---

No your right I didn't even get into how the two networks diffentiate between traffic. LOL.

[jmsherman8]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

Maru,

   Actually IF you are a high bandwidth user the advice is very sound. Because IF  you lock yourself into a contract then YOU are subject to ATT term fee's to get out of that contract. Now if you were just doing a bit of usage above the cap you may be right, but if it turns out that you are blowing the cap out, you are much much much better staying out of contract so that you can move services. Also if business class comcast is available in that area it is roughly the same cost as UVERSE residential. NOW THAT IS  A NO BRAINER.

---

The only alternate ISP in my area is Charter.  That IS my ONLY choice.  Most of us only have one or two choices of ISP in our local areas.  Plus, I have never had a contract with ATT Uverse.  To move to Charter would REQUIRE a contract.

As the Consumer Reports survey of 70,000 customers make very clear, anyone NOT using ATT Uverse or Verizon FIOS is getting MUCH WORSE service and features.  I trust CR more than anyone here to evaluate our choices.

You also state:

" ATT wouldn't purchase the code from Comcast, and Comcast most certainly would not sell it to them in most cases BECAUSE it is considered intellectual property."

LICENSING of intellectual property is done all the time.   Otherwise, none of us would be allowed to run Windows 7.

@jt4703: You stated: "I CAN access my meter since about mid-march and NONE of the totals for any of the date ranges, or more recently individual days, are anywhere near the same amounts both of my meters I have running on my end for the same date ranges/days. I have one machine connected to the internet, wireless is turned off, and both bandwidth meters that run on my machine are within .01mb of one another, however the AT&T meter is 2-4GB over per day or 15-25GB over on the past data that was collected in "weekly" ranges."

Have you yet exceded your 150 Gb per month cap?  I assume you are a DSL user since I havn't noticed any Uverse users report their bandwidth usage here yet.  What meters are you using to verify ATT's meter?  There is no guarantee any commerial 3rd party meter is accurate either.  In fact most of them are probably a lot less accurate than ATT's meter since it is likely ATT licenses theiir meter software from Comcast which has tested it for THREE YEARS and those other meters are being offered by much smaller companies without large alpha and beta test users.

In fact it is very likely that ATT has been doing their own testing on their bandwidth meters for at least 6 weeks now since their first public announcement of the caps.  The delays in introduction are probably related to testing and validating on MILLIONS of their customers as we speak.  No 3rd party meters have millions of customers to the best of my knowledge.  I could be wrong there. If you know of one tested on millions of customers for at least a year which has been proved not to clash with most other software, I'd like to know it's name.  I may buy a copy myself to verify ATT's meter.

@bubba: you stated: "I agree, Comcast wouldn't sell their meter. Plus, AT&T would never want it. But even if for some strange reason they did, it's not like a plug-n-play device. So many changes would have to be made to the code that it would be faster and easier to start from scratch. It's not like both Comcast and AT&T networks are clones of each others. "

I said up above the meter software was probably LICENSED.  And you are CORRECT again.  All those delays we are seeing are probably due to customization, testing and validation to meet ATT's special needs.  Even if ATT developed their own unique metering software instead of taking the shortcut of licensing from Comcast, there could still be many unexpected delays in implementation.  That's why neither you nor I can read our own meters yet.  Hopefully, they will go live before 2012.  Maybe its better they take longer and don't subject us to the new caps for as long as possible.

---

Maru, 

 If you read the post closely you will see that I said IF comcast business class is available an option then it is a no brainer. Charter business class, now that is a tough call. And yes we license intellectual property all the time. However there is a huge difference between Microsoft licensing a copy of windows 7 to a consumer (its end customer), and Comcast licensing it's proprietary network operations and control software to its largest competitor. It probably isn't going to happen. It would be like Apple licensing the kernal from Windows 7. Microsoft probably would never sell that license and Apple probably wouldn't want to buy it because they are in direct competition for customers.

[jmsherman8]

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

---

Here is my complaint:

My DSL USE for the Past Couple Months, prior to U-Verse:

It would have been much higher, but the DSL uplink was so slow, I could never get the stuff uploaded that I needed to.  Plus with the DSL whever I was uplolading it hosed the whole connection and nothing else worked, I could not view Netflix and could barely check e-mail.

Now I can do most things while I am uploading, Netflix is still slow and paused about 6 times during a movie last night to load.  I'm on the 18MB plan.

Jamie

---

Jamie, 

   Well it looks like you made short work of your cap. Thanks for posting them.

[jamiedolan]

---

Infernal wrote:

---

---

Just out of pure curiosity, what are you planning to do with 2TB worth of data usage (piracy, obsessively online backup everyday, streaming videos 24/7 not withstanding...)

---

It was just an example not an estimate of actual useage.  Uploading years worth of videos that I haven't been able to get uploaded on DSL is extremely bandwidth intensive.  Especially the ones I want to use to promote my sites (I have a couple forums I run as a hobby I am promoting) where I upload them to multiple video hosting services for more exposure.

HD video is a killer at more than 20GB a hour.  Some longer dog training videos I do are huge.  Even for example if I have a 5 GB video and have 5 different sites I need to put it on, that chews up 25GB.  Then if I had 10 different videos I wanted to upload, there goes my 250GB cap right there.

Backing up my Digital Photography is pretty consuming as well and is normally somewhere between 10-30GB.

We use Netflix.  I also like to backup copies of my sites on a regular basis so I keep a current copy locally.  I have around 40GB on servers for all my sites, ideally, I do a full backup once a week, that's another 160GB.

It was a huge struggle to do most of these things on my dsl due to the speed and problems with the dsl.

Jamie

[jmsherman8]

---

jjShard wrote:

Jeez, it feels like the Mafia has taken over the US residential Internet market.  You do what we tell you, pay what we say, and like it. Not a joke any more. 

Caps are catching on.  Customers are demanding they be applied everywhere..

New water usage caps from your city government.  When you use too much water, we cut you off and let you die of thirst (not really, you can always buy bottled water or move to another state).

Electricity caps:  Exceed the cap by mid-month and sit in darkness until the next billing cycle starts.  Invest in a candle shop.

Gasoline caps: You get X gallons per month.  Sorry if you had to drive your grandmother to the hospital and back.  No excuse. Caps are caps.

Food caps:  Think Soviet bread lines.  Line up for bread.  Line up the occasionaly slice of beef. 

Internet caps:  Microsoft releases most of its software and updates via downloads.  Will the release of Windows 8 help ATT make money on overages?  Bingo.

Well, lets see. If I stand in a bread line, get my water from the community tap, conserve gasoline in old wine bottles, and utilize candles only when necessary, then perhaps I can survive the coming economic and social ice age that ATT and Charter and Time Warner and Comcast have initiated. 

It it was heard around the table:  250 GB it is then, agreed?  Agreed! said all.   The new mafia.

---

Yep right up until the point elliot ness gets involved. LOL.

[jamiedolan]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

So far I haven't seen any DSL users, who can read their meters, complain that they are over their 150 Gb per month cap at all.

---

Here is my complaint:

My DSL USE for the Past Couple Months, prior to U-Verse:

It would have been much higher, but the DSL uplink was so slow, I could never get the stuff uploaded that I needed to.  Plus with the DSL whever I was uplolading it hosed the whole connection and nothing else worked, I could not view Netflix and could barely check e-mail.

Now I can do most things while I am uploading, Netflix is still slow and paused about 6 times during a movie last night to load.  I'm on the 18MB plan.

Jamie

---

Are you still on DSL or did you switch to Uverse?  If you are having technical problems with your service, you should call ATT technical support and have them come to your residence to fix the problems.

Are those meters you are showing, the ATT meters?  It appears your router meter, your UVRT meter and your ATT meter all have different numbers from your previous post.  Are the covered dates all the same?

If all the meters for the same covered time periiod are all different, I can see why we cannot see the ATT Uverse meters yet.  There appears to be a lot more work required on all the different meters before they will ever agree. However, if the covered time periods are all different, the meters will never agree on anything.

If you are still using DSL and are over the 150 Gb per month cap, you will have to either pay the $ 10 per month per 50 Gb overage fee or cut back on your bandwidth use.  Another option would be to switch to Uverse and up your cap to 250 Gb per month which would place you within the limits.

---

I had DSL for about 8 years.  I switched to U-Verse just under 2 weeks ago.  The thing that really pushed me to get U-Verse is that my DSL had been having serve problems for over 2 weeks.  I had 4 trouble tickets and a tech spent half the day out here.  They could not figure out what happened.  It worked  pretty well (about 4.5MB/.7MB) for years, then my speed was cut in half one day after a storm and I had a ton of packet loss.  After more than 5 hours on the phone with different levels of support personal and the onsite visit and equiptment replament, people from engineering were suppose to get invloved, but they never got back to me.  That is when I gave up and ordered U-Verse

The meters I showed above are AT&T meters from the att.com/internet-useage site.  It does not yet show me any useage for U-Verse.  Those meters are what it displayed for my DSL account.  It showed one more partial line tha I croped out just because it was only part of a month, because of my switch to U-Verse, and it was much lower use due to the problems with the line.

I don't have any meters for U-Verse other than what I see locally in the modem and in the U-Verse software.

I finally have a fast enough connection that there are a buch of things I can finally get uploaded, but now I have to deal with this infurating cap.

Jamie

[Infernal]

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

Infernal wrote:

---

---

Just out of pure curiosity, what are you planning to do with 2TB worth of data usage (piracy, obsessively online backup everyday, streaming videos 24/7 not withstanding...)

---

It was just an example not an estimate of actual useage.  Uploading years worth of videos that I haven't been able to get uploaded on DSL is extremely bandwidth intensive.  Especially the ones I want to use to promote my sites (I have a couple forums I run as a hobby I am promoting) where I upload them to multiple video hosting services for more exposure.

HD video is a killer at more than 20GB a hour.  Some longer dog training videos I do are huge.  Even for example if I have a 5 GB video and have 5 different sites I need to put it on, that chews up 25GB.  Then if I had 10 different videos I wanted to upload, there goes my 250GB cap right there.

Backing up my Digital Photography is pretty consuming as well and is normally somewhere between 10-30GB.

We use Netflix.  I also like to backup copies of my sites on a regular basis so I keep a current copy locally.  I have around 40GB on servers for all my sites, ideally, I do a full backup once a week, that's another 160GB.

It was a huge struggle to do most of these things on my dsl due to the speed and problems with the dsl.

Jamie

---

If I understand you correctly, you are a plague upon humanity (well, the internet community in any case).  You uploaded hundreds of GB worth of videos for the purpose of sharing... You obviously by logic expect people to download and view them... You get where I am going with this? (j/k)  

I have a few TB worth of video compression tutorials if you wish me to share with you.

[sirmaru]

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

@jamiedolan: take note of the above.  The new ATT Uverse bandwidth charges may well equal or exceed one of the above options for you and you may want to consider one of those options.  ATT may even be able to provide one or more of those options to you.

[jamiedolan]

---

Infernal wrote:

---

---

If I understand you correctly, you are a plague upon humanity (well, the internet community in any case).  You uploaded hundreds of GB worth of videos for the purpose of sharing... You obviously by logic expect people to download and view them... You get where I am going with this? (j/k)  

I have a few TB worth of video compression tutorials if you wish me to share with you *end irony*

---

:-)  I've tried re-encoding the videos myself to make them smaller prior to upload.  Every major video sharing site re-encodes the videos when you upload them, and they end up looking crappy (how bad they look depends on the site and how you re-encoded it, but it kind of defeats the point of HD to lose all that quality) once they are encoded again.  All the video sharing sites have the same answer to this problem: Upload the original files without re-encoding them.

If there is a trick to compress them, and have them still look good once the video sites re-encode them, I'd love to know about it.

Once the sites have the original and encode it, it is far far smaller when it streams out to the end user, a 20+GB HD video is more like 3.5GB when it is streamed from a service like YouTube in 1080i.

The problem comes down to the only way to get it to them and to maintain the quality is to upload the full size original file.

Thanks

Jamie

[jamiedolan]

---

sirmaru wrote:

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

This would be far more than adequate and fair.  I honestly doubt that I would even get past 500GB total use once I get caught up on some things I am behind on becuase of the DSL issues.  If it was a 500GB cap and I might have to pay some overage for a little while, I would not even care.  But I know that I will get past the 250 and the extra $50 is just way to much;  I can get a whole additional line installed for that prices and have 2 Internet connections.

I just feel the 250GB cap is too low and that the $10 per 50GB is excessivly high.  I know what Internet transfer costs carriers (I don't know the specfics of AT&T financials, but I know enough about the business and Industry in general, including what lines sell for in datacenters and such to make very educated guesses) and their cost is no where close to this.

Jamie

[Infernal]

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of Videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

I'm confused.  What does speeed upgrades have to do with usage cap?  People in this forum are not complaining about their slow speed (or even reliabilities for that matter).

What's the point of upgrading my speed to do exactly what I am perfectly happy to do with my currently speed "capacity"?  Does an OC3 not cost hundreds if not thousand of dollars to maybe get unlimited bandwidth?

[sirmaru]

---

Infernal wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of Videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

I'm confused.  What does speeed upgrades have to do with usage cap?  People in this forum are not complaining about their slow speed (or even reliabilities for that matter).

What's the point of upgrading my speed to do exactly what I am perfectly happy to do with my currently speed "capacity"?  Does an OC3 not cost hundreds if not thousand of dollars to maybe get unlimited bandwidth?

---

Higher speeds usually come with higher capacities.  If you are uploading at 9.6 Gigabits per second, the bandwidth capacity would have to also be proportionally higher to make sense. 

Some of the prices on those lower speed options may actually be less than paying for overages in ATT Uverse bandwidth caps.  You would have to call ATT to see their prices and other vendors to have a price comparison.  You could ask them if any bandwidth caps apply there and what is their bandwidth capacity.

Its possible that both Comcast and ATT have imposed these caps to identify prospective customers for their business services to increase their revenue overall.  That may be the real reason for the caps.  It probably makes more business sense than building new infrastructure to support residential increases in bandwidth use.

I can already visualize that in 10 years we all may be using OC 192 lines.  With Holographic TV in use right now (my son's business video conferences already use them) those kinds of speeds and bandwidth capacities may well become a necessity.

[bubbba]

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

@jamiedolan: take note of the above.  The new ATT Uverse bandwidth charges may well equal or exceed one of the above options for you and you may want to consider one of those options.  ATT may even be able to provide one or more of those options to you.

---

The better suggestion would be to find a Business Class Account. Most of, if not all, the options you just recommended would be way over-price for a residential user. Heck, even for most small businesses.

[Infernal]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

Infernal wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of Videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

I'm confused.  What does speeed upgrades have to do with usage cap?  People in this forum are not complaining about their slow speed (or even reliabilities for that matter).

What's the point of upgrading my speed to do exactly what I am perfectly happy to do with my currently speed "capacity"?  Does an OC3 not cost hundreds if not thousand of dollars to maybe get unlimited bandwidth?

---

Higher speeds usually come with higher capacities.  If you are uploading at 9.6 Gigabits per second, the bandwidth capacity would have to also be proportionally higher to make sense. 

Some of the prices on those lower speed options may actually be less than paying for overages in ATT Uverse bandwidth caps.  You would have to call ATT to see their prices and other vendors to have a price comparison.  You could ask them if any bandwidth caps apply there and what is their bandwidth capacity.

Its possible that both Comcast and ATT have imposed these caps to identify prospective customers for their business services to increase their revenue overall.  That may be the real reason for the caps.  It probably makes more business sense than building new infrastructure to support residential increases in bandwidth use.

---

Here in lies ONE of the many problems with this policy.  U-Verse ranges from 3Mbps to 24Mbps with the same 250GB cap (as far as I know).  By your logic, when I get the max speed AT&T offer, AT&T should expect me to use more bandwidth (thus by their chart Max Plus and Max Turbo to to stream videos).  That is at least one of the complaint.  24Mbps users should get more bandwidth.

Are you actually avocating AT&T should stop investing into more (hopefully newer tech) infrastructure while the rest of the world around it continue to grow (evolved)?

[Infernal]

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

This would be far more than adequate and fair.  I honestly doubt that I would even get past 500GB total use once I get caught up on some things I am behind on becuase of the DSL issues.  If it was a 500GB cap and I might have to pay some overage for a little while, I would not even care.  But I know that I will get past the 250 and the extra $50 is just way to much;  I can get a whole additional line installed for that prices and have 2 Internet connections.

I just feel the 250GB cap is too low and that the $10 per 50GB is excessivly high.  I know what Internet transfer costs carriers (I don't know the specfics of AT&T financials, but I know enough about the business and Industry in general, including what lines sell for in datacenters and such to make very educated guesses) and their cost is no where close to this.

Jamie

---

Don't forget to add the "equipment fee" to your 2nd net connection.  How does the exact same residential gateway sitting in my closet appreciate from $3 to $4 is beyond me.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

sirmaru wrote:

1) Personally, I think the ATT meters will be very accurate since they probably purchased the code from Comcast where they have been tested for THREE YEARS. 

2) The 3rd party meters now under development, which have never had alpha or beta tests for three years, are probably much more INACCURATE and will be so for at least for one year after introduction.

3) It is also very likely that the delay in the meter implementation may have something to do with testing and validation to improve their accuracy. 

4) Testing on millions of customers will have a much better accuracy outcome than a 3rd party meter being tested on a few dozen installations.

---

1. Where is your evidence for this statement?  What indications do you have that AT&T purchased anything from Comcast?  Or is this simply complete speculation on your part?

2. Where is your evidence that any 3rd-party meter is inaccurate?  The length or scope of testing is irrelevant.  A meter is either accurate or it's not accurate.  Or is it just your speculation that it must be inaccurate?

3. Where is your evidence that any delay on the part of AT&T is related to accuracy or testing details?  Or is this just speculation on your part?

4. Where is your proof that testing duration or number of test subjects affects meter accuracy?  A meter is either accurate or it's not.  There is no subjective judgment of whether a meter is "accurate".  There is a true number of bytes transferred.  A meter that reports that number is accurate.  Any other number is not.

Post all evidence that you have that shows that your entire post isn't complete speculation that therefore is meaningless.