AT&T To Impose Caps, Overages [ Edited ]

[Infernal]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

yep I just got into this the other day with Dish...they seriously need a program where you can pick and choose the channels that you want to pay for...maybe pick 60 for $XXXXXX and pick 120 for $YYY. Like I want to have to pay for 14 channels of Home shopping network? Who cares?

---

I'd love this on a small scale as well, 10-20 chanels for $10 a month or something. Most of the cable stations I want to watch have regluar commercials anyway so I do not have any interest in paying a premium for that content.

---

absolutely...it would be a huge seller, and they wouldn't have to pay as much for there channel contracts.

---

Actually you and AT&T would be paying MUCH MUCH more on an ala carte basis.  As for the shopping channels, you don't pay for those, they pay providers to be aired and help keep the costs down.  They could have 300 shopping channels and as long as I have the ability to ignore the channels, I don't care.

---

Exactly how much much more?  If it is the same prices as HBO or STARZ, etc., it will be cheaper still for a few channels that my family watch (not to mention no adverts to boot, a big selling point).  I don't want to have to pay for the next tier just to get 1 or 2 channels I wanted (in this TV Guide/Internet/smart phones day and age, not many do channel surfing anymore).  Is there anything wrong with having both a-la-carte option AND the super jumbo trail mix option they currently offer for their customers???  After all, lack of alternative options is what these TV/internet prices/policies so hard to swallow for us.

If Wal-mart (it is early in the morn so give my example some slack) decided to place a cap on how many items their customers can buy in a day, I would have to say I'd be hard pressed to find more than 1 in 1000 people complained (there will always be someone complaining about anything).

[mogamer]

---

megamawax wrote:

---

megamawax wrote:

"I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent AT&T's position, strategies or opinion."

I don't know...from what I've seen so far, the guys who have this as their tag seem to mirror AT&T's positions pretty closely.   Is there anyone other than an AT&T employee on this forum that actually wants to defend AT&T?  I can understand someone wanting to support their employer, but when a company's actions are being derided pretty universally by their customers, the unwavering defense by these employees feels disengenuous.   

If no one else wants to, then, from the perspective of an inside man who understands AT&T's technology, can one of you AT&T employees tell me where AT&T is right and where AT&T is wrong on this cap issue and why?

Right now I, like many of the people on this forum, feel as though AT&T's caps are unwarranted and that they are simply pursuing an agenda designed to stifle competition with their U-Verse television package.   As it is, everything I've read suggests that congestion is not a serious issue for AT&T.  And if it were, caps don't do much, if anything, to relieve that congestion, and there certainly would be more effective ways of reducing strain on their network.  Additionally, I have not been convinced that there is a financial need for these caps as broadband networks already produce tidy profits.    

Because of the lack of sufficient competition, AT&T can do pretty much whatever it wants as it doesn't really need to worry much about customer satisfaction.  After all, in many cases the only alternative is a cable company with equally dismal consumer ratings.  It disturbs me a great deal that companies are allowed to both control the pipes and deliver content as they will naturally be biased toward their own content.  You can find a lot of information online (stop the cap dot com) regarding many of the consumer-unfriendly actions AT&T and other telecom companies engage in.

---

As a side note, I currently have DirecTV for television and AT&T U-verse phone and internet (my 2 year DirecTV contract is up this summer, and U-verse wasn't an option when I began that contract, otherwise I'd probably have U-verse for TV as well - phone and internet were upgraded to U-verse when it became available).  I have been an SBC / AT&T customer since 2003.  My contract with AT&T is up next month, and I'm trying to decide what I should do.  Prior to this cap nonsense, I had planned on picking up U-verse for TV and dropping DirecTV for convenience.  However, I will not be doing that now.  Besides, I like DirecTV, so I might as well keep them.  For phone and internet, my only two choices are sticking with AT&T or moving to Comcast (sort of like choosing between getting punched in the face or kicked in the gonads).  As I will be sticking with DirecTV, I'm not going to drop TV service in order to be able to afford to upgrade to business class internet.

I currently use 300-400 GB per month (unverified by AT&T's mysterious U-verse meter that apparently does not exist), though a good chunk of that is due to cloud back-up.  Back in March, I had to switch services, so I'm having to re-back-up everything, which will take many more months to accomplish.  However, once the initial back-up is complete, my monthly usage should be under the 250GB caps from AT&T and Comcast.  I could probably slow the speed of the back-ups in order to get under that threshold now, but I'd rather not.  While I do game from time to time, I'm not a heavy gamer.  I do stream a bit from Netflix and other internet content providers.  My wife does some streaming as well, but is not a heavy user.  The only child in the house is not quite yet 4, so he's not exactly a heavy user either.  

So basically the question is, should I stick with AT&T out of convenience, or should I move to Comcast in order to send AT&T a message?  Comcast, I believe, is slightly pricier.  Is their network more reliable?  Also, I've heard that Comcast does not strongly enforce their caps.  Anyone know if that is true?  With Comcast, there would be a risk of having my service terminated for going over the cap (in which case, I could just go back to AT&T), but at least there wouldn't be any surprise charges due to an inaccurate meter (for you AT&T homers, AT&T has given me no reason whatsoever to trust that their meters will be accurate - better safe than sorry).  

---

You can afford Comcast Business Class service if you have to play overage charges to ATT. Actually uncapped business class service along with a third party VOIP like Vonage would be cheaper. I wouldn't even wait for the first time to pay them for overages. I left ATT for WOW without seeing what is going to happen. I really doubt ATT will reverse their decision and even if they do I won't be coming back unless something totally drastic happens with their competition. They way ATT has handled this situation tells me that they have a total lack of respect for their customers intelligence.

[flhthemi]

---

ryanmercer wrote:

---

Infernal wrote:

Where is the guy with the captain's log?  Aren't those things suppose to be daily???

---

I run a loose ship.

Captains log day 19 still we only recieve

"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"

the crew is beginning to go mad hearing this message repeated when we attempt to monitor our progress...

---

Aye Capt. Mercer, I can already hear Mr. Scott screaming for more dilithium crystals! Not enough power to fire up the usage meter AND Warp Drive at the same time!

As for my link to the NBC video...I see some of you managed to see it anyway. I wish they would do a story on this!

[jmsherman8]

---

bld522 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

bld522 wrote:

All T&T has to do to deny a customer's complaint that their usage has been inflated is to blame it on some amorphous "protocol overhead" that only AT&T can see and only AT&T can measure.  Sounds plausible.  But it's really just a way for AT&T to throw up a smokescreen so its customers can't successfully track their own usage, jack up its revenues and drive out its competitors.

---

Yep if they are going to do this they are going to HAVE to be subjected to SERIOUS regulatory oversight... and there meters should HAVE to be validated and testable.

---

That's not likely to happen before the damage has been done and millions of dollars have found their way into AT&T's coffers.  Even if AT&T loses in the long run, AT&T wins.

It's good to be AT&T!

---

Normally I would say you are wrong but I have heard of some issues with the FCC coddling the broadband providers. You know what that sounds like. Kickbacks. And that is not good for the american consumer. 

[jmsherman8]

I don't like the pay per episode or pay per series model...I like the netflix model.

[jmsherman8]

---

Infernal wrote:

---

bld522 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

bld522 wrote:

Dead serious.  All T&T has to do to deny a customer's complaint that their usage has been inflated is to blame it on some amorphous "protocol overhead" that only AT&T can see and only AT&T can measure.  Sounds plausible.  But it's really just a way for AT&T to throw up a smokescreen so its customers can't successfully track their own usage, jack up its revenues and drive out its competitors.

---

Yep if they are going to do this they are going to HAVE to be subjected to SERIOUS regulatory oversight... and there meters should HAVE to be validated and testable.

---

That's not likely to happen before the damage has been done and millions of dollars have found their way into AT&T's coffers.  Even if AT&T loses in the long run, AT&T wins.

It's good to be AT&T!

---

What are you talking about??? Only 2% of subscribers should be worried remember?

---

Yeah we all know that number is WRONG.

[jmsherman8]

---

bubbba wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:

---

rharkness wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:

Understood, but legal firms are not always (in fact rarely) tech-savy. I'm not calling it {bovine male excrement}, I'm just saying I'd like to see their test methodology.

---

I actually worked the most of the last 10 years in the legal technology field.  I must say that while there are a lot of attorney's that are sadly lacking technology skills, many of them know that is their weakness and hired companies like the ones that I worked for to accomplish their needs.  In fact, electronic discovery is big business and why you should be very careful on what you do on your computer because some of these people who specialize in that type of activity can find a lot of dirt that you "said" (not meaning spoken aloud but IM conversations, e-mails, etc) when you thought noone would find out.

{Keep it Relevant: The forum is not a venue for legal discussions}

---

Yep, I know; I was an "expert witness" against several consultants on behalf of some customers (back when I worked with a VAR). Part of my job was to educate the legal team(s) about the technology and review the depositions for inaccurate, suspicious, and evasive responses (in addition to testifying as an expert witness).

Lawyers (at least at the time) were extremely suspicious of computer and networking folks because they were caught, scaled, cleaned and cooked by consultants that took advantage of their relative illiteracy in computer/networking . One of the lawyers I worked with actually took to the techy stuff and built a decent practice in working with other lawyers to set up their legal networks and  PCs (connectivity, applications, menu systems (later Windows stuff).

I',m not implying that they're all stupid, or trying to cash in ... I am interested on what they compared, how they compared it, and how they reached their conclusions.

---

I can understand that. You want to see the data and how they came to their conclusions. That's very logical. I assume you would be as skeptical about AT&T's data as well??? Myself, I patently await the AT&T data meter so I can finally compare it with my accurate data and see how far off they are. I have been tracking my own usage for a month and a half and know exactly what I use, and it is below the cap. From all the reports about the DSL meter, I very well could be over after AT&T calculates the numbers. Although, I don't really need the AT&T meter to know they are going to be inaccurate . Between counting network overhead, which is so wrong in my opinion, to rounding UP rather then counting the actual usage, their numbers are already inflated.

---

yep in this scenario with this much money on the line they will try every trick in the book to inflate there numbers...

[jmsherman8]

---

Escapee wrote:

Comcast has a the same cap and they added internet customers.

There may not be congestion now but if no more extra revenue comes from customer doubling their usage every year.

a customer can go from 20 meg to 40  and that is not a big hit. If a customer goes from 200 to 400 then you are causing a much bigger hit. Sooner or later the ISP has to buy equipment. The ISP has three choices do nothing and youe speed drop to a crawl. Go up on the price for everyone. Last place a cap and let the customers generating the most need to buy new equipment sooner pay for the equipment.

---

My understanding is that Comcast hasn't been enforcing there cap. The furthest they go is sending out a warning not a bill. and once they give you the warning they "suggest" that you move to business class if it is going to be an issue. That is a far different model than what ATT is using.

[jmsherman8]

---

mogamer wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:

---

I',m not implying that they're all stupid, or trying to cash in ... I am interested on what they compared, how they compared it, and how they reached their conclusions.

---

Hey Scott I completely agree with you on your approach to testing results. I'm sure you'll agree that ATT should do the same thing when it comes to usage caps for their customers!

---

LOL

[jmsherman8]

---

mogamer wrote:

---

Escapee wrote:

Comcast has a the same cap and they added internet customers.

There may not be congestion now but if no more extra revenue comes from customer doubling their usage every year.

a customer can go from 20 meg to 40  and that is not a big hit. If a customer goes from 200 to 400 then you are causing a much bigger hit. Sooner or later the ISP has to buy equipment. The ISP has three choices do nothing and youe speed drop to a crawl. Go up on the price for everyone. Last place a cap and let the customers generating the most need to buy new equipment sooner pay for the equipment.

---

Like bubba said, every business needs to upgrade and maintain equipment to remain competitve. But when raw materials go down in price, in this case bandwith, product prices usually go down to match. And the way technology is, I'm sure  the money you paid for equipment 5 years ago would buy much better and faster equipment today. So those costs probably haven't risen too badly either. So basically, ATT doesn't want to invest any of their current profit to normal upgrades and maintenance, they want to use that money to buy out competitors to create an even less competitive market. What they really want, is to use the money gained from overage charges to what they should be doing all along.

---

Of course not they want there existing profits and then they want US there CUSTOMERS to FUND there NEW equipment.

[Infernal]

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

I don't like the pay per episode or pay per series model...I like the netflix model.

---

That's the thing.  A good (customer-friendly) company should give us choices.  No one single pricing planing can fit millions of people (subscribers).

[jmsherman8]

---

megamawax wrote:

---

megamawax wrote:

"I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent AT&T's position, strategies or opinion."

I don't know...from what I've seen so far, the guys who have this as their tag seem to mirror AT&T's positions pretty closely.   Is there anyone other than an AT&T employee on this forum that actually wants to defend AT&T?  I can understand someone wanting to support their employer, but when a company's actions are being derided pretty universally by their customers, the unwavering defense by these employees feels disengenuous.   

If no one else wants to, then, from the perspective of an inside man who understands AT&T's technology, can one of you AT&T employees tell me where AT&T is right and where AT&T is wrong on this cap issue and why?

Right now I, like many of the people on this forum, feel as though AT&T's caps are unwarranted and that they are simply pursuing an agenda designed to stifle competition with their U-Verse television package.   As it is, everything I've read suggests that congestion is not a serious issue for AT&T.  And if it were, caps don't do much, if anything, to relieve that congestion, and there certainly would be more effective ways of reducing strain on their network.  Additionally, I have not been convinced that there is a financial need for these caps as broadband networks already produce tidy profits.    

Because of the lack of sufficient competition, AT&T can do pretty much whatever it wants as it doesn't really need to worry much about customer satisfaction.  After all, in many cases the only alternative is a cable company with equally dismal consumer ratings.  It disturbs me a great deal that companies are allowed to both control the pipes and deliver content as they will naturally be biased toward their own content.  You can find a lot of information online (stop the cap dot com) regarding many of the consumer-unfriendly actions AT&T and other telecom companies engage in.

---

As a side note, I currently have DirecTV for television and AT&T U-verse phone and internet (my 2 year DirecTV contract is up this summer, and U-verse wasn't an option when I began that contract, otherwise I'd probably have U-verse for TV as well - phone and internet were upgraded to U-verse when it became available).  I have been an SBC / AT&T customer since 2003.  My contract with AT&T is up next month, and I'm trying to decide what I should do.  Prior to this cap nonsense, I had planned on picking up U-verse for TV and dropping DirecTV for convenience.  However, I will not be doing that now.  Besides, I like DirecTV, so I might as well keep them.  For phone and internet, my only two choices are sticking with AT&T or moving to Comcast (sort of like choosing between getting punched in the face or kicked in the [keep it courteous] ).  As I will be sticking with DirecTV, I'm not going to drop TV service in order to be able to afford to upgrade to business class internet.

I currently use 300-400 GB per month (unverified by AT&T's mysterious U-verse meter that apparently does not exist), though a good chunk of that is due to cloud back-up.  Back in March, I had to switch services, so I'm having to re-back-up everything, which will take many more months to accomplish.  However, once the initial back-up is complete, my monthly usage should be under the 250GB caps from AT&T and Comcast.  I could probably slow the speed of the back-ups in order to get under that threshold now, but I'd rather not.  While I do game from time to time, I'm not a heavy gamer.  I do stream a bit from Netflix and other internet content providers.  My wife does some streaming as well, but is not a heavy user.  The only child in the house is not quite yet 4, so he's not exactly a heavy user either.  

So basically the question is, should I stick with AT&T out of convenience, or should I move to Comcast in order to send AT&T a message?  Comcast, I believe, is slightly pricier.  Is their network more reliable?  Also, I've heard that Comcast does not strongly enforce their caps.  Anyone know if that is true?  With Comcast, there would be a risk of having my service terminated for going over the cap (in which case, I could just go back to AT&T), but at least there wouldn't be any surprise charges due to an inaccurate meter (for you AT&T homers, AT&T has given me no reason whatsoever to trust that their meters will be accurate - better safe than sorry).  

---

Only you can make that decision mega...myself if they send me one violation notice I am gone. I may move next month anyways when my rates skyrocket...we will see if they have a reasonably priced NO CONTRACT option.

[jmsherman8]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

yep I just got into this the other day with Dish...they seriously need a program where you can pick and choose the channels that you want to pay for...maybe pick 60 for $XXXXXX and pick 120 for $YYY. Like I want to have to pay for 14 channels of Home shopping network? Who cares?

---

I'd love this on a small scale as well, 10-20 chanels for $10 a month or something. Most of the cable stations I want to watch have regluar commercials anyway so I do not have any interest in paying a premium for that content.

---

absolutely...it would be a huge seller, and they wouldn't have to pay as much for there channel contracts.

---

Actually you and AT&T would be paying MUCH MUCH more on an ala carte basis.  As for the shopping channels, you don't pay for those, they pay providers to be aired and help keep the costs down.  They could have 300 shopping channels and as long as I have the ability to ignore the channels, I don't care.

---

Thats a shame because the way they are packaged stinks...LOL.

[jmsherman8]

---

Infernal wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

I don't like the pay per episode or pay per series model...I like the netflix model.

---

That's the thing.  A good (customer-friendly) company should give us choices.  No one single pricing planing can fit millions of people (subscribers).

---

Very true.

[bld522]

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

bld522 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

bld522 wrote:

All T&T has to do to deny a customer's complaint that their usage has been inflated is to blame it on some amorphous "protocol overhead" that only AT&T can see and only AT&T can measure.  Sounds plausible.  But it's really just a way for AT&T to throw up a smokescreen so its customers can't successfully track their own usage, jack up its revenues and drive out its competitors.

---

Yep if they are going to do this they are going to HAVE to be subjected to SERIOUS regulatory oversight... and there meters should HAVE to be validated and testable.

---

That's not likely to happen before the damage has been done and millions of dollars have found their way into AT&T's coffers.  Even if AT&T loses in the long run, AT&T wins.

It's good to be AT&T!

---

Normally I would say you are wrong but I have heard of some issues with the FCC coddling the broadband providers. You know what that sounds like. Kickbacks. And that is not good for the american consumer. 

---

The way I heard it, the FCC is afraid to take on AT&T.  I suspect it's going to take an institution bigger than the FCC to make the FCC do what it's paid to do . . . protect the American public from the predatory practices of companies like AT&T.

[johngarrett400]

What a bummer, don't know how this cap is gonna affect me yet . Due to AT&T massive U-verse bundle campaign, I just order this service, I thought it would be an affordable unlimited service. Guess that assumption was to good to be true.{Keep it Relevant: The forum is not a venue for legal discussions}

[bld522]

Don't feel alone.  I think a LOT of AT&T customers are in for a rude awakening in the not-too-distant future.

[jamiedolan]

---

---

bld522 wro

---

The way I heard it, the FCC is afraid to take on AT&T.  I suspect it's going to take an institution bigger than the FCC to make the FCC do what it's paid to do . . . protect the American public from the predatory practices of companies like AT&T.

---

There is such an organization that does in fact have more oversight and a much broader ability to penalize and enforce consumer protection laws; The Federal Trade Commision. 

If you feel that AT&T may have engaged in anti-competitive practices; you have the legal right to file a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

Quoting from the FTC site:

"The FTC was created in 1914, its purpose was to prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce as part of the battle to “bust the trusts.” Over the years, Congress passed additional laws giving the agency greater authority to police anticompetitive practices. In 1938, Congress passed a broad prohibition against “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Since then, the Commission also has been directed to administer a wide variety of other consumer protection laws"

I'm not advising anyone to file a complaint, but making you aware that there is a government division that does investigate matters such as these that may be deemed anti-competitive. 

The FTC takes their job quite seriously; Look at the history of the FTC and the fines they have levied.  In some cases, where the FTC deems that there may be criminial actions that have occured, they will invlove the Deparment of Justice (such as in the Microsoft case). 



[ryanmercer]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

yep I just got into this the other day with Dish...they seriously need a program where you can pick and choose the channels that you want to pay for...maybe pick 60 for $XXXXXX and pick 120 for $YYY. Like I want to have to pay for 14 channels of Home shopping network? Who cares?

---

I'd love this on a small scale as well, 10-20 chanels for $10 a month or something. Most of the cable stations I want to watch have regluar commercials anyway so I do not have any interest in paying a premium for that content.

---

absolutely...it would be a huge seller, and they wouldn't have to pay as much for there channel contracts.

---

Actually you and AT&T would be paying MUCH MUCH more on an ala carte basis.  As for the shopping channels, you don't pay for those, they pay providers to be aired and help keep the costs down.  They could have 300 shopping channels and as long as I have the ability to ignore the channels, I don't care.

---

We watch 4 channels that we can't get on the air... we'd pay a LOT less ala carte.

[oufanindallas]

---

ryanmercer wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

yep I just got into this the other day with Dish...they seriously need a program where you can pick and choose the channels that you want to pay for...maybe pick 60 for $XXXXXX and pick 120 for $YYY. Like I want to have to pay for 14 channels of Home shopping network? Who cares?

---

I'd love this on a small scale as well, 10-20 chanels for $10 a month or something. Most of the cable stations I want to watch have regluar commercials anyway so I do not have any interest in paying a premium for that content.

---

absolutely...it would be a huge seller, and they wouldn't have to pay as much for there channel contracts.

---

Actually you and AT&T would be paying MUCH MUCH more on an ala carte basis.  As for the shopping channels, you don't pay for those, they pay providers to be aired and help keep the costs down.  They could have 300 shopping channels and as long as I have the ability to ignore the channels, I don't care.

---

We watch 4 channels that we can't get on the air... we'd pay a LOT less ala carte.

---

Don't count on it. There's a reason why channels are in the line ups they are.  Take ABC/Disney for example, they give a providers channels a, b and c for a lower price as long as they also carry channels d, e and f and carry them in a certain tier.  If you had ala carte, the broadcast company won't have as many subscribers and therefore will have to increase their prices per channel by a lot. 

[bubbba]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

ryanmercer wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

yep I just got into this the other day with Dish...they seriously need a program where you can pick and choose the channels that you want to pay for...maybe pick 60 for $XXXXXX and pick 120 for $YYY. Like I want to have to pay for 14 channels of Home shopping network? Who cares?

---

I'd love this on a small scale as well, 10-20 chanels for $10 a month or something. Most of the cable stations I want to watch have regluar commercials anyway so I do not have any interest in paying a premium for that content.

---

absolutely...it would be a huge seller, and they wouldn't have to pay as much for there channel contracts.

---

Actually you and AT&T would be paying MUCH MUCH more on an ala carte basis.  As for the shopping channels, you don't pay for those, they pay providers to be aired and help keep the costs down.  They could have 300 shopping channels and as long as I have the ability to ignore the channels, I don't care.

---

We watch 4 channels that we can't get on the air... we'd pay a LOT less ala carte.

---

Don't count on it. There's a reason why channels are in the line ups they are.  Take ABC/Disney for example, they give a providers channels a, b and c for a lower price as long as they also carry channels d, e and f and carry them in a certain tier.  If you had ala carte, the broadcast company won't have as many subscribers and therefore will have to increase their prices per channel by a lot. 

---

In my opinion, the only way to know the answer to an “Ala Carte” senerio would be if someone (a TV Provider) actually tried it. I can certainly see how it could work in many markets. The cost per channel may end up higher, but the overall cost could likely be lower. Using your example for instance.

ABC/Disney can also say, if anyone subscribes to either channels a, b, or c, you need to include a, b, c, d, e, and f with the subscription. The cost of the subscription would be, let's say $10.00 per month for the ABC/Disney package. And, other packages would be similar to this, like, an ESPN Package, News Packages, USA Network Packages, A&E Packages, SiFi Packages, ...ext. Just subscribe to what interests you and if you want everything, that's fine too because the TV Provider still offers the conventional tiered TV packages. There could even be a Home Shopping Package offered for people who wanted that. The content providers would have to negosiate to be added to a certain package just like many do in the current senario.

Currently with U-Verse:

300 channels @ $79.00 = 26.3 cents per channel

Ala Carte:

2 packages (20 channels) @ $10.00ea. ($20.00) = $1.00 per channel (.74 higher)

And, also remember that there would be a BASE cost that would cover the service. Say, $35.00 + your subscriptions. So, at some point the conventional packages would be more cost effective for most, but the choice would still be there for anyone who is only interested in a few channels.

The $10.00 a month cost per subscription is speculative and only used as an example. Even at $15.00 per subscription package, it would still cost less per month for someone who is only interested in a couple of packages. But, like I said, someone would have to try it before any of us would know if it would really work. In theory, for me, it could work. And, it could be just the thing to keep many people from cutting the cord. Some might even re-attach it do to this better choice.

Would many people that supply TV content be upset about this senerio? Many would and some may not, but change always upsets someone. Why do you think the “On-Demand” senerio became so popular? That wasn't popular with all the content providers either when it was first considered. It was introduced because the consumer wanted the choice, and they got it. And, the content providers found a formula that worked for them, and made them money.

Edit:

One more thought. A cord cutter makes the TV provider 'ZERO' dollars. An 'Ala Carte' package could make the TV provider at lease $50 a month in revenue. Why would they not want the $50+ added to their revenue stream?

[ryanmercer]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

ryanmercer wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

yep I just got into this the other day with Dish...they seriously need a program where you can pick and choose the channels that you want to pay for...maybe pick 60 for $XXXXXX and pick 120 for $YYY. Like I want to have to pay for 14 channels of Home shopping network? Who cares?

---

I'd love this on a small scale as well, 10-20 chanels for $10 a month or something. Most of the cable stations I want to watch have regluar commercials anyway so I do not have any interest in paying a premium for that content.

---

absolutely...it would be a huge seller, and they wouldn't have to pay as much for there channel contracts.

---

Actually you and AT&T would be paying MUCH MUCH more on an ala carte basis.  As for the shopping channels, you don't pay for those, they pay providers to be aired and help keep the costs down.  They could have 300 shopping channels and as long as I have the ability to ignore the channels, I don't care.

---

We watch 4 channels that we can't get on the air... we'd pay a LOT less ala carte.

---

Don't count on it. There's a reason why channels are in the line ups they are.  Take ABC/Disney for example, they give a providers channels a, b and c for a lower price as long as they also carry channels d, e and f and carry them in a certain tier.  If you had ala carte, the broadcast company won't have as many subscribers and therefore will have to increase their prices per channel by a lot. 

---

No, you'd just have all the crap channels dissapear. No reason you need Travel 1 Travel 2 Travel 3 Travel 4 Travel 5, Espn 1 Espn 2 Epsn 3 Epsn Lunar Sports Espn 4.... Espn 71249

[oufanindallas]

Interesting article on the myths behind ISP caps.

[jmsherman8]

---

bld522 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

bld522 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

bld522 wrote:

All T&T has to do to deny a customer's complaint that their usage has been inflated is to blame it on some amorphous "protocol overhead" that only AT&T can see and only AT&T can measure.  Sounds plausible.  But it's really just a way for AT&T to throw up a smokescreen so its customers can't successfully track their own usage, jack up its revenues and drive out its competitors.

---

Yep if they are going to do this they are going to HAVE to be subjected to SERIOUS regulatory oversight... and there meters should HAVE to be validated and testable.

---

That's not likely to happen before the damage has been done and millions of dollars have found their way into AT&T's coffers.  Even if AT&T loses in the long run, AT&T wins.

It's good to be AT&T!

---

Normally I would say you are wrong but I have heard of some issues with the FCC coddling the broadband providers. You know what that sounds like. Kickbacks. And that is not good for the american consumer. 

---

The way I heard it, the FCC is afraid to take on AT&T.  I suspect it's going to take an institution bigger than the FCC to make the FCC do what it's paid to do . . . protect the American public from the predatory practices of companies like AT&T.

---

I don't think the FCC is afraid of ATT I think the reverse is true. I do however think that the issue we have here is that the top executive at the FCC is a bit to Comcast / ATT friendly and so tends to err on there part from what I have read so far. Hopefully the White house and or congress will eventually take notice of this situation and lean on them to force them to do the right thing.

[jmsherman8]

---

johngarrett400 wrote:

What a bummer, don't know how this cap is gonna affect me yet . Due to AT&T massive U-verse bundle campaign, I just order this service, I thought it would be an affordable unlimited service. Guess that assumption was to good to be true.{Keep it Relevant: The forum is not a venue for legal discussions}

---

you would have to check the ToS but it used to be that you could cancel within the first 30 days.

[jmsherman8]

---

bld522 wrote:

Don't feel alone.  I think a LOT of AT&T customers are in for a rude awakening in the not-too-distant future.

---

BLD,

   No doubt!

[jmsherman8]

---

jamiedolan wrote:

---

---

bld522 wro

---

The way I heard it, the FCC is afraid to take on AT&T.  I suspect it's going to take an institution bigger than the FCC to make the FCC do what it's paid to do . . . protect the American public from the predatory practices of companies like AT&T.

---

There is such an organization that does in fact have more oversight and a much broader ability to penalize and enforce consumer protection laws; The Federal Trade Commision. 

If you feel that AT&T may have engaged in anti-competitive practices; you have the legal right to file a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

Quoting from the FTC site:

"The FTC was created in 1914, its purpose was to prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce as part of the battle to “bust the trusts.” Over the years, Congress passed additional laws giving the agency greater authority to police anticompetitive practices. In 1938, Congress passed a broad prohibition against “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Since then, the Commission also has been directed to administer a wide variety of other consumer protection laws"

I'm not advising anyone to file a complaint, but making you aware that there is a government division that does investigate matters such as these that may be deemed anti-competitive. 

The FTC takes their job quite seriously; Look at the history of the FTC and the fines they have levied.  In some cases, where the FTC deems that there may be criminial actions that have occured, they will invlove the Deparment of Justice (such as in the Microsoft case). 



---

Good idea Jamie. Thank you for reminding me.

[jmsherman8]

---

ryanmercer wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

jt4703 wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

yep I just got into this the other day with Dish...they seriously need a program where you can pick and choose the channels that you want to pay for...maybe pick 60 for $XXXXXX and pick 120 for $YYY. Like I want to have to pay for 14 channels of Home shopping network? Who cares?

---

I'd love this on a small scale as well, 10-20 chanels for $10 a month or something. Most of the cable stations I want to watch have regluar commercials anyway so I do not have any interest in paying a premium for that content.

---

absolutely...it would be a huge seller, and they wouldn't have to pay as much for there channel contracts.

---

Actually you and AT&T would be paying MUCH MUCH more on an ala carte basis.  As for the shopping channels, you don't pay for those, they pay providers to be aired and help keep the costs down.  They could have 300 shopping channels and as long as I have the ability to ignore the channels, I don't care.

---

We watch 4 channels that we can't get on the air... we'd pay a LOT less ala carte.

---

If they were the right channels I think we could get away with about 20 to 30 channels.

[jmsherman8]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

Interesting article on the myths behind ISP caps.

---

That article right there shows that it is a combination of GREED and Anticompetitive practices that ATT is engaged in. They need to repeal this data cap now.

[Escapee]

The outer edge last mile is the most venerable to congestion. The comment from  Gregory W  just go up on everybody took the cake. So it is OK to penalize by charging him more the 50 meg a month user but not OK to charge the 500 meg a month user. 

Unless NetFlix is picked up at every local CO part of stream goes through some part of the core. True it may not be the core backbone from the West Coast to the rest of the country but if it is only dropped off at major cities it still goes through the regional core network. If they are 30% of the load at peak times that is a lot and has to be planned for to carry the load at that time. The more customers use only generates costs for the ISP no more revenue.

If you let a friend that traveled use the spare bedroom one night a month there would be very little cost to you but if that guest started staying  a full week or more you would start to think about asking for some compensation. When he stayed one night he took you out to eat when he stayed a week or longer he quit doing even that.

Some of the ISP customers are like the visitor they use Netflix so much they drop the TV. So the part cost of the TV paid for is lost but the expense to the ISP for the internet has gone up.