I see post where people are able to use the bandwidth usage page that ATT included in the announcement to cap internet usage at www.myusage.att.com and see their usage for January and February 2011. When I logon to the site it state that the site is still under construction and my usage is not available. When I call ATT they tell me the site will not be available for a couple more weeks, closer to the May 2nd date when they turn on the usage cap.... Just wondering if anyone else is actually having the same problem I am.

Yup, same for me and a lot of others.

---

sirmaru wrote:

Relax, lads, no one has seen our official usage rates yet since the ATT Usage Site is not yet functional.  Everyone is jumping to conclusions on their use.  No one really knows.

 

At least ATT will give us two grace months of warning if we do exceed the usage cap of 250 Gb before charging us a mere $ 10 per month for each 50 Gb over the 250 Gb.  Charter has the SAME CAP and just suspends your account if you exceed it ONCE.  ATT is far more generous.  Plus, Charter doesn't even offer a site to see your numbers.  Its all on trust with them.

 

Where i live, I have only TWO ISP's available to me: ATT and Charter.  ATT is still much LESS restrictive. 

 

I have the ATT U450 TV plan in effect.  If I must pay bandwidth usage charges, I'll just reduce my U450 service as needed to compensate.

---

I'm well aware of what I use, and it's considerably past that meager cap.

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

I'm sure I'm the only one here who doesn't already know, but what is CLEC and ILEC?

Thanks for your patience and withheld flames!

In the United States, a CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier) is a telephone company that competes with the already established local telephone business by providing its own network and switching. The term distinguishes new or potential competitors from incumbent local exchange carriers (ILEC) and arises from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was intended to promote competition among both long-distance and local phone service providers.

---

willyb wrote:

 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

 

I'm sure I'm the only one here who doesn't already know, but what is CLEC and ILEC?

 

Thanks for your patience and withheld flames!

---

Willy,

   Just telecom talk. an ILEC is the Incumbent local exchange carrier. A CLEC is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. In every area there will be one company that maintains the infrastructure. In most cases it is ATT. That is the ILEC. CLECs often own there own network but they HAVE no choice but to go through the ILEC for what is called the last mile. The last mile is the connection between your home and the Serving Wire Station or Central Office. At that location there is equipment to bridge networks. All CLECs that are going to service that area HAVE to have a presence there to do it. That is where your data and voice traffic is cut over to the other carrier. Anyways I could go into alot more detail but that is the simplified version of it.

---

spatri000 wrote:

 

I see post where people are able to use the bandwidth usage page that ATT included in the announcement to cap internet usage at www.myusage.att.com and see their usage for January and February 2011. When I logon to the site it state that the site is still under construction and my usage is not available. When I call ATT they tell me the site will not be available for a couple more weeks, closer to the May 2nd date when they turn on the usage cap.... Just wondering if anyone else is actually having the same problem I am.

---

The Uverse page is delayed. I am wondering if it is because most of the people with Uverse packages pay alot more and they are worried about a mass exit before the cap even goes live. LOL. On the bright side, perhaps they are thinking of grandfathering existing UVERSE users into unlimited to preserve there customer base there? I could only hope. It would be great if an ATT moderator or employee took this idea to higher management... hint hint hint!

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

BLD,

   you are probably right, they probably are just resellers or agents.

---

dhascall wrote:

Has anyone received a postcard or other "official" notification?

 

The notices were supposedly going out, last week.  Not sure the method.  If you receive a postcard, email or a pop-up TV notice (U-Verse TV), please let us know.  Who will be the first?  Your prize?  A 250 Gb cap that only applies (wink, wink, nod, nod) to 2% of users. 

---

No, and it's April 7th.

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

 

---

Pake wrote:

 

---

sirmaru wrote:

Relax, lads, no one has seen our official usage rates yet since the ATT Usage Site is not yet functional.  Everyone is jumping to conclusions on their use.  No one really knows.

---

You can monitor your usage and most routers, so telling people who have done this that they are jumping to conclusions is a bit ridiculous. I know what my usage rate is just by checking it and since I'm still on normal DSL, the myusage.att site works for me and their site isn't even close to being accurate. They're showing mine a good 20-25% higher for the last month that what I actually used, which falls in line with what DSLReport's is showing at 33% higher than actual usage.

 

While I'm still quite a bit under the cap, the simple concept of adding restrictions on usage when it hasn't been a problem for 10 years is ridiculous. The moment AT&T introduced its IPTV network, people had a feeling they would try to prevent competition against their network on the same connection. With this cap, AT&T will have effectively prevented competition on the network. No more options for small IPTV companies to come into existence, because it'll go against your usage rate, but don't fear, AT&T "has your back" because you can buy their unlimited IPTV service for a bit more money!

 

The only purpose of a broadband cap is to prevent new start-up IPTV companies and competition with old foes across lines. AT&T doesn't want someone to have the option to use Verizon IPTV, or Comcast IPTV, or Netflix over "their" internet. Similarly, Comcast doesn't want someone using AT&T's IPTV over "their" internet.

 

I repeat, this isn't about users using too much bandwidth, it's about limiting competition with their IPTV service.

---

I believe you are 100% correct on with this statement.

 

---

It is all corporate greed.    Without content, people are not going to be willing to pay AT&T $65.00 a month for internet service! 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

Then you are assuming wrong (gee, big surprise). There are very specific legal and regulatory definitions for an ILEC, a CLEC, and an agent or retailer of either's services.

CLECs negotiate their contract with the ILEC; they are bound to that contract as is the ILEC. Like so many things, the service level a CLEC gets is going to be dependent on what the CLEC pays for. Regulations state that the service has to be provided at a price that permits the CLEC to compete against the ILEC (and other CLECs), usually at a lower retail price than the ILEC can charge. If the CLEC decides to charge nearly the same, or to implement caps/thresholds/tiers, that is there business, and theirs alone (but it still has to meet regulatory framework).

---

msoliman1985 wrote:

ummm, Comcrap too has a 250GB cap

---

Yes, Comcast has a cap, but I never even knew it until this issue with AT&T. Before switching to AT&T 14 months or so ago, I had Comcast for over 12 years. I used the internet in the same way I do now and never heard anything from Comcast. The only reason I switched to Uverse was because of the faster speeds they offered. I tripled my Comcast speed, but look where that got me. I have already been in contact with Comcast and if I was to move back, there would be no cap for my account. But, I will only be able to get 12/2 instead of AT&T's 24/? Speeds.

---

spatri000 wrote:

 

I see post where people are able to use the bandwidth usage page that ATT included in the announcement to cap internet usage at www.myusage.att.com and see their usage for January and February 2011. When I logon to the site it state that the site is still under construction and my usage is not available. When I call ATT they tell me the site will not be available for a couple more weeks, closer to the May 2nd date when they turn on the usage cap.... Just wondering if anyone else is actually having the same problem I am.

---

I am having the EXACT same problem you are. And, I have called support just like you have. Everytime I talk to an AT&T rep I get a different answer. The last time I was told that it is being rolled out State-by-State, and then I see people in my area posting that they can see theirs. God only knows when you will have access to your meter, because AT&T sure doesn't seem to. They just don't seem to care how this affect their Customers.

---

ScottMac wrote:

 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

Then you are assuming wrong (gee, big surprise). There are very specific legal and regulatory definitions for an ILEC, a CLEC, and an agent or retailer of either's services.

 

 

CLECs negotiate their contract with the ILEC; they are bound to that contract as is the ILEC. Like so many things, the service level a CLEC gets is going to be dependent on what the CLEC pays for. Regulations state that the service has to be provided at a price that permits the CLEC to compete against the ILEC (and other CLECs), usually at a lower retail price than the ILEC can charge. If the CLEC decides to charge nearly the same, or to implement caps/thresholds/tiers, that is there business, and theirs alone (but it still has to meet regulatory framework).

 

---

Does that work the same way with cable providers?  In other words, can a cable provider demand that a reseller pass its broadband caps policy through to the resellers' customers?  Or would you know that, ScottMac?

---

willyb wrote:

 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

 

I'm sure I'm the only one here who doesn't already know, but what is CLEC and ILEC?

 

Thanks for your patience and withheld flames!

---

The other descriptions are pretty good, but basically the ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) is the organization that owns the cable infrastructure for a given area. In 22 states, it's AT&T, in othe states it's Verizon, Quest, even GTE in a few areas, and some "mom and pop shops"

Rather than have each carrier run their own infrastructure (and creating a canopy of cables you wouldn't see the sun through or digging up every square inch of dirt in an urban area), the ILEC is obligated by regulation (and before that, business contracts and agreements) to permit other competitive organizations (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) to use their infrastructure for local distribution (as mentioned, the "last mile"). It is an infrastructure-only agreement; each CLEC puts their equipment in the Central Office (CO) and the copper or fiber is cut over or switched from the ILEC's equipment to the CLEC's equipment. One might use Nortel, another Alcatel, and a third might be using Cisco or Juniper. Each LEC has separate area of the office, usually locked "cages" in a completely separate area of the office.

Each provides their own maintenance staff and all are responsible for their own stuff. In the case of an infrastructure issue, the ILEC is responsible and must perform the repair or change. The CLEC's customer can't call the ILEC directly for a fix, they have to call the CLEC, and the CLEC must call the ILEC and monitor the status and communicate with the customer.

In the AT&T footprint, Verizon can be a CLEC, in Verizon territory AT&T can be a CLEC. Every carrier carries traffic for most, if not all of their competititors. In a business environment, a company can have branches in multiple ILEC zones, and so while the home office might be in AT&T territory, other offices in other territories are still considered to be served by AT&T, even though the inbound line is actually owned by Verizon or some other LEC.

Out of area service is not considered being a CLEC because you are merely completing a circuit that starts in a different territory. Being a CLEC means you can sell primary service in that area (originate and terminate, or originate only). To gain CLEC status, the organization must have a local presence (equipment in the rack).

All of this dance is according to the federal, state and local regulations and is strictly monitored and enforced. Fines for deviation are steep.

---

msoliman1985 wrote:

ummm, Comcrap too has a 250GB cap

---

Comcast has a 250gb cap to AT&T's 150gb cap. That's like $20 off of AT&T's price after the overage charges. Which would you prefer. Neither I would hope, but of the 2 choices, Comcast is the better. Although Comcast is not DSL, it more closely matches DSL when it comes to the speeds available. It doesn't really compare to Uverse unless you talk Xfinity. I'm not certain if Xfinity has caps or not, anyone know?

---

bld522 wrote:

 

---

ScottMac wrote:

 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

Then you are assuming wrong (gee, big surprise). There are very specific legal and regulatory definitions for an ILEC, a CLEC, and an agent or retailer of either's services.

 

 

CLECs negotiate their contract with the ILEC; they are bound to that contract as is the ILEC. Like so many things, the service level a CLEC gets is going to be dependent on what the CLEC pays for. Regulations state that the service has to be provided at a price that permits the CLEC to compete against the ILEC (and other CLECs), usually at a lower retail price than the ILEC can charge. If the CLEC decides to charge nearly the same, or to implement caps/thresholds/tiers, that is there business, and theirs alone (but it still has to meet regulatory framework).

 

---

 

Does that work the same way with cable providers?  In other words, can a cable provider demand that a reseller pass its broadband caps policy through to the resellers' customers?  Or would you know that, ScottMac?

 

 

---

I am not 100%, but I believe that it is currently only regulated at the state level, at least some chunk of the regulation. The reason I believe that is because last year Illinois passed some flavor of "fairness" law that put Cable in the same regulatory status as Telcos.

My recollection is that the "fairness" was because while Telcos were providing Phone, ISP, and in some cases TV (and coverd under one set of regulations), Cable was providing TV, ISP, and in some cases, Telephone (and covered under a different set of usually lesser/looser regulations).

The new law put CableCos in the same regulatory band as Telcos (and vice versa) according to the services offered, not the media it was carried on.

For Cable-to-Cable organizations, I think they have similar type of regulations or agreements. In Illinois (around Chicago burbs) Comcast is the primary provider, and there's another cable company called "Wow" that offers similar service, for less (according to some friends that have it). So you could have Comcast, your neighbors can have WOW, and I'm pretty sure it's all coming down the same cable backbone.

Beyond that, I don't have any specifics or details. It's a little OT for this thread, but if I find anything, I'll try to post it or shoot you an email with a link.

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

You are in a gray area and the contract the CLEC has with the ILEC would set the price. Depending on how much of the ILEC network the CLEC leases they may noe be much more then a sales company. They hve a contract so they my or may not have the caps.

The at&t Uverse business interne accounts do not have the caps.

---

ryanmercer wrote:

 

---

dhascall wrote:

Has anyone received a postcard or other "official" notification?

 

The notices were supposedly going out, last week.  Not sure the method.  If you receive a postcard, email or a pop-up TV notice (U-Verse TV), please let us know.  Who will be the first?  Your prize?  A 250 Gb cap that only applies (wink, wink, nod, nod) to 2% of users. 

---

No, and it's April 7th.

 

---

I think they are coming in email as well. Of course if they are starting to realize the number of customers they are going to lose they may have choose to forego using regular mail, figuring it is going to cost to much to send the notification that way. Besides if they just email it there is a percentage who may not even realize what has happened until they get a violation letter.

---

ScottMac wrote:

 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

Then you are assuming wrong (gee, big surprise). There are very specific legal and regulatory definitions for an ILEC, a CLEC, and an agent or retailer of either's services.

 

 

CLECs negotiate their contract with the ILEC; they are bound to that contract as is the ILEC. Like so many things, the service level a CLEC gets is going to be dependent on what the CLEC pays for. Regulations state that the service has to be provided at a price that permits the CLEC to compete against the ILEC (and other CLECs), usually at a lower retail price than the ILEC can charge. If the CLEC decides to charge nearly the same, or to implement caps/thresholds/tiers, that is there business, and theirs alone (but it still has to meet regulatory framework).

 

 

Scott,

 

   Well let me put it to you this way. I have never had a CLEC in the detroit or flint area that passed a bandwidith cap onto its customers. That would include Cavtel, Paetec (which recently bought cavtel), CMC Telecom, Telnet World Wide, Grid 4, etc, etc, etc.... on to there customers. Now admittedly I specialize in business class services, but most of these companies also sell to regular consumers, and I have NEVER heard of a cap being passed on. Now all of these CLECs have there own network. Most of them are very good sized. 

---

ScottMac wrote:

 

---

willyb wrote:

 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

 

I'm sure I'm the only one here who doesn't already know, but what is CLEC and ILEC?

 

Thanks for your patience and withheld flames!

---

 

The other descriptions are pretty good, but basically the ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) is the organization that owns the cable infrastructure for a given area. In 22 states, it's AT&T, in othe states it's Verizon, Quest, even GTE in a few areas, and some "mom and pop shops"

 

Rather than have each carrier run their own infrastructure (and creating a canopy of cables you wouldn't see the sun through or digging up every square inch of dirt in an urban area), the ILEC is obligated by regulation (and before that, business contracts and agreements) to permit other competitive organizations (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) to use their infrastructure for local distribution (as mentioned, the "last mile"). It is an infrastructure-only agreement; each CLEC puts their equipment in the Central Office (CO) and the copper or fiber is cut over or switched from the ILEC's equipment to the CLEC's equipment. One might use Nortel, another Alcatel, and a third might be using Cisco or Juniper. Each LEC has separate area of the office, usually locked "cages" in a completely separate area of the office.

 

Each provides their own maintenance staff and all are responsible for their own stuff. In the case of an infrastructure issue, the ILEC is responsible and must perform the repair or change. The CLEC's customer can't call the ILEC directly for a fix, they have to call the CLEC, and the CLEC must call the ILEC and monitor the status and communicate with the customer.

 

In the AT&T footprint, Verizon can be a CLEC, in Verizon territory AT&T can be a CLEC. Every carrier carries traffic for most, if not all of their competititors. In a business environment, a company can have branches in multiple ILEC zones, and so while the home office might be in AT&T territory, other offices in other territories are still considered to be served by AT&T, even though the inbound line is actually owned by Verizon or some other LEC.

 

Out of area service is not considered being a CLEC because you are merely completing a circuit that starts in a different territory. Being a CLEC means you can sell primary service in that area (originate and terminate, or originate only). To gain CLEC status, the organization must have a local presence (equipment in the rack).

 

All of this dance is according to the federal, state and local regulations and is strictly monitored and enforced. Fines for deviation are steep.

---

Scott,

   A very concise explanation. You should be a trainer for ATT. LOL.

---

Mikro wrote:

I just got the E-mail mentioning the May 2 2011 changes and includes the still confusing Bandwidth Usage Limits

Looks like I might be looking to go back to charter after reading TOS and the E-mail Because it looks like AT&T wants to Punish the General User instead of going after the 2% they say are abusing Network bandwidth Use.

 

I can't even find the link to the new TOS

---

No one is abusing their internet service, we are living in the 21st century.

I see here some people with access to myusage.att.com and others not.  Is there anyone here with U-verse Internet, not DSL, who can see the usage meter?

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

 

---

ScottMac wrote:

 

---

bld522 wrote:

---

ScottMac wrote:
A CLEC buys bandwidth wholesale and can sell it or otherwise use it any way it sees fit, within the regulatory limits. It is not bound in any way to enforce a retail cap/threshold by the host ILEC. However, the ILEC/CLEC contract may provide a tiered tariff structure (use more, pay more or use more, pay less).

---

Then I have to assume that some providers who appear to be CLECs are nothimg more that ILEC resellers in disguise.  The problem, once again, is that these resellers don't disclose the fact that their customers will be capped.  They let the ILEC do the dirty work for them.

---

Then you are assuming wrong (gee, big surprise). There are very specific legal and regulatory definitions for an ILEC, a CLEC, and an agent or retailer of either's services.

 

 

CLECs negotiate their contract with the ILEC; they are bound to that contract as is the ILEC. Like so many things, the service level a CLEC gets is going to be dependent on what the CLEC pays for. Regulations state that the service has to be provided at a price that permits the CLEC to compete against the ILEC (and other CLECs), usually at a lower retail price than the ILEC can charge. If the CLEC decides to charge nearly the same, or to implement caps/thresholds/tiers, that is there business, and theirs alone (but it still has to meet regulatory framework).

 

 

Scott,

 

   Well let me put it to you this way. I have never had a CLEC in the detroit or flint area that passed a bandwidith cap onto its customers. That would include Cavtel, Paetec (which recently bought cavtel), CMC Telecom, Telnet World Wide, Grid 4, etc, etc, etc.... on to there customers. Now admittedly I specialize in business class services, but most of these companies also sell to regular consumers, and I have NEVER heard of a cap being passed on. Now all of these CLECs have there own network. Most of them are very good sized. 

 

 

---

That is my point. CLECs lease the media, they can do with it whatever they want, within regulatory limits. Just like you can lease a building, and use it for whatever you want, within the limits of the law (and conditions set forth in the lease).

Being a CLEC gets you the "last mile" media (copper, fiber) it DOESN'T get you ISP services from the ILEC or CLEC. ISP services and Internet connectivity are purchased from a provider (wholesale); the connectivity between the CLEC's media and the ISP is the equipment that the CLEC provides.

It also doesn't get you any long haul service (to get out of region). For example, one CLEC that operates in the Chicago area backhauled all of their traffic to another state (consumer - CLEC's CO facilities - long haul to a different state - CLEC's "cloud" & Internet handoff. This got them up and going while they built local facilities.

But again, being a CLEC gets you some copper; everything else is a separate deal and CLEC's provide all the equipment to connect the dots.

---

ryanmercer wrote:

 

---

Mikro wrote:

I just got the E-mail mentioning the May 2 2011 changes and includes the still confusing Bandwidth Usage Limits

Looks like I might be looking to go back to charter after reading TOS and the E-mail Because it looks like AT&T wants to Punish the General User instead of going after the 2% they say are abusing Network bandwidth Use.

 

I can't even find the link to the new TOS

---

No one is abusing their internet service, we are living in the 21st century.

 

---

Ryan,

  I agree. The problem is our ISPs here in the states aren't living in the 21st century yet.

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

 

  I agree. The problem is our ISPs here in the states aren't living in the 21st century yet.

---

 

ATT IS doing the correct thing with the caps.  They will charge a REASONABLE fee, $ 10 per 50 Gb, for those who go over the 250 Gb cap.  That is NOT a high fee.  Some like Charter are SUSPENDING acconts which go over their 250 Gb cap.

 

This way, the very few who are high bandwidth users, will PAY so we, who are low bandwidth users, can operate with lower fees.  That makes a lot of sense.

 

Otherwise, fees would have to rise for all of us which would NOT be fair.

 

I can only get 18 Mbps since I live 2,300 feet from the Vrad.  Others get 24 Mbps since they live closer to the Vrad and want the higher speed.  They also pay a higher fee than I do.  Those folks are the prime candidates for using higher bandwidth as well.  They should pay the REASONABLE costs involved.

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

 

---

spatri000 wrote:

 

I see post where people are able to use the bandwidth usage page that ATT included in the announcement to cap internet usage at www.myusage.att.com and see their usage for January and February 2011. When I logon to the site it state that the site is still under construction and my usage is not available. When I call ATT they tell me the site will not be available for a couple more weeks, closer to the May 2nd date when they turn on the usage cap.... Just wondering if anyone else is actually having the same problem I am.

---

The Uverse page is delayed. I am wondering if it is because most of the people with Uverse packages pay alot more and they are worried about a mass exit before the cap even goes live. LOL. On the bright side, perhaps they are thinking of grandfathering existing UVERSE users into unlimited to preserve there customer base there? I could only hope. It would be great if an ATT moderator or employee took this idea to higher management... hint hint hint!

 

---

I agree about ATT not wanting to lose anyone early. If ATT was really losing money or suffering congestion from the "heavy users", then they would welcome the chance to inform these people so they could sooner leave. I contend that none of this is happening and that ATT is instituting caps to protect their tv business.

Let's face it, Comcast and ATT don't really know how to compete. The majority of their growth this last decade has occured, not because they've been better than the other guy, but because they bought the other guy out. So instead of trying to compete with internet streaming, they want to bully it away with anti-competitive measures, such as caps. Sadly, since cabelco and teleco's are mostly government approved monopolies or duopolies, consumers don't have many other options. I guess the cure would be old-fashioned regulation where every act has to be approved by a government board.

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

 

  I agree. The problem is our ISPs here in the states aren't living in the 21st century yet.

---

 

ATT IS doing the correct thing with the caps.  They will charge a REASONABLE fee, $ 10 per 50 Gb, for those who go over the 250 Gb cap.  That is NOT a high fee.  Some like Charter are SUSPENDING acconts which go over their 250 Gb cap.

 

This way, the very few who are high bandwidth users, will PAY so we, who are low bandwidth users, can operate with lower fees.  That makes a lot of sense.

 

Otherwise, fees would have to rise for all of us which would NOT be fair.

 

I can only get 18 Mbps since I live 2,300 feet from the Vrad.  Others get 24 Mbps since they live closer to the Vrad and want the higher speed.  They also pay a higher fee than I do.  Those folks are the prime candidates for using higher bandwidth as well.  They should pay the REASONABLE costs involved.

 

---

The very fact that they pay more money than you should entitle them to more bandwith. If ATT wants to discourage "heavy users" than they should make their top tier 3 or 6 mps. That would slow down a lot of usage. Why would a business sell a product that encourages heavy use then want to cap that use? It doesn't make any sense, until you realize ATT values their tv business more than their internet business.

Reasonable caps (if you really have to have them) would be 200 gig for 1.5 mps customers going all the way to 600 gig for 24 mps customers and $5 per extra 50 gig.

ATT and Comcast don't seem to have a problem selling unlimited bandwith to business customers who use a whole lot more bandwith than even "heavy" residential users. Why don't they offer a pricier cap-less service for residential customers then? Because businesses don't usually stream Netflix or Hulu with their service.

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

 

  I agree. The problem is our ISPs here in the states aren't living in the 21st century yet.

---

 

ATT IS doing the correct thing with the caps.  They will charge a REASONABLE fee, $ 10 per 50 Gb, for those who go over the 250 Gb cap.  That is NOT a high fee.  Some like Charter are SUSPENDING acconts which go over their 250 Gb cap.

 

This way, the very few who are high bandwidth users, will PAY so we, who are low bandwidth users, can operate with lower fees.  That makes a lot of sense.

 

Otherwise, fees would have to rise for all of us which would NOT be fair.

 

I can only get 18 Mbps since I live 2,300 feet from the Vrad.  Others get 24 Mbps since they live closer to the Vrad and want the higher speed.  They also pay a higher fee than I do.  Those folks are the prime candidates for using higher bandwidth as well.  They should pay the REASONABLE costs involved.

 

I disagree simaru, but if ATT is truly trying to defray costs of network upgrades, then they should do away with the speed tiers and replace them with bandwidth tiers instead. IE. 150 GB for 29.99, 200 gb for 34.95, 250 gb for 39.95, 350 Gb for 49.95, 500 GB for 59.95, etc. on the highest tier then put a $10.00 per 50 gb price adjustment on there. Or perhaps have an unlimited plan for 69.95 or something like that.