New DSL customers face caps from 20-150GB p/mo, existing customers will later join the trial automatically if they exceed 150GB p/mo, with overage fees pegged at $1 USD p/GB.
After the FCC determined that Comcast violated the agency’s principles by throttling BitTorrent in order to ease network traffic congestion, ISPs around the country began testing out new methods of doing so that didn’t “selectively target and interfere with connections of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications” and data caps have become the most popular tool for deployment in their efforts.
Comcast and Time Warner have both rolled out monthly data usage limits and now it appears that AT&T is following their lead with an announced trial for the city of Reno, NV.
From an FCC filing:
As AT&T has previously explained, a small minority of our broadband Internet access customers consume a disproportionately large amount of the total bandwidth available to all of the customers on our network.
In order to ensure that we can continue to equitably provide affordable broadband services to all of our customers, we are exploring potential changes to the manner in which we offer and charge for those services.
In particular, AT&T plans to initiate a broadband Internet access usage trial in Reno,
Nevada beginning in November. Consistent with AT&T’s belief that consumers should have clear information about the capabilities of their broadband Internet access services and any meaningful limitations on those service, AT&T will be providing written notice to customers involved in the trial explaining that their broadband service will be subject to a certain monthly usage tier for the total amount of data they may send and receive, as well as a per gigabyte charge in the event they exceed the usage tier.
So there you have it. Unable to throttle P2P applications and services ISPs are now limiting services still oftentimes advertised as unlimited. It’s been a problem for Internet users in the UK, 86% of whom have said in a recent survey that they don’t fully understand. Hopefully the problem is better addressed here in the US, but considering the fact that transparency isn’t usually a trait I’d associate with ISPs I wouldn’t hold my breath.
AT&T does claim, however claim that it will make efforts to avoid any confrontation with customers by trying to repeatedly educate them about their data caps. It says that it will provide customers with an online usage metering tool that displays a running total of the amount used in a given month. When customers reach 80% of their monthly data cap it will send them a written reminder to remind them of their limits and the additional charges that may apply if they exceed it. In addition, the first time a customer exceeds the applicable monthly caps they won’t be charged. It’s only after the second offense that they face overage fees of $1 p/GB.
Is network congestion really that much of an issue for AT&T or is it just once again looking to placate the RIAA or MPAA? After announcing it would partner with them to keep pirated content off its network a while back it makes you wonder what ulterior motives may be at play. It certainly didn’t mind forwarding all of its traffic to the NSA so why not the RIAA or MPAA? Data caps would simply help their efforts in keeping traffic and content filtering more manageable.
This is modern day censorship. The US Government issued them the license to offer competitive service. Well the Government needs to take it away for violations of collusion. AT&T Sprint and Verizon are all doing the same cellular service. So this is a competitive service violation. If they are having trouble buy a new router like I do when things run slow dah. Cisco can help.
The whole “our bandwidth is being hogged by 5% of our users” argument is bullshit. How many calls has AT&T been getting from people complaining about poor bandwidth? Probably ZERO complaints I would gather. So if they need more bandwidth for their customers why aren’t they providing it? I hear that in South Korea Internet subscribers have access to Gigabyte-level speeds. Can’t we have that here in America too? I mean come on! As Judge Judy would say: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!”
The whole “our bandwidth is being hogged by 5% of our users” argument is bullshit. How many calls has AT&T been getting from people complaining about poor bandwidth? Probably ZERO complaints I would gather. So if they need more bandwidth for their customers why aren’t they providing it? I hear that in South Korea Internet subscribers have access to Gigabyte-level speeds. Can’t we have that here in America too? I mean come on! As Judge Judy would say: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!”
The whole “our bandwidth is being hogged by 5% of our users” argument is bullshit. How many calls has AT&T been getting from people complaining about poor bandwidth? Probably ZERO complaints I would gather. So if they need more bandwidth for their customers why aren’t they providing it? I hear that in South Korea Internet subscribers have access to Gigabyte-level speeds. Can’t we have that here in America too? I mean come on! As Judge Judy would say: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!”
The only way to rid yourself of these limits is to not use their service at all!
If enough people did this AT&T would think twice about caps!
But using another service is the only way to get out of the idiotic caps they want to place on you.
Would paying for the access data transfer make the data you received your property? if i pay for 1gig of data Does that make it my personal 1gig along with all the right to ownership?
i would still download an HD movie at 5 Gigs and pay $5 than actually buy it.
Hmm…interesting point.
Youd just have to make sure you kept it to XVIDs and not Blu-Ray or DVD-Rs…
But keep in mind youd have to seed an equal amount for private sites anyway so it’s really double since the cap takes into account both UL and DL.
And actually most .avi movies available via P2P clock in at at most 750 MBs so $1 for each GB over the monthly limit translates into $ 0.75 additional per movie downloaded. STILL cheaper than the alternatives.
Apparently Verizon is not “currently” contemplating limiting downloads. Guess we know who’s going to be getting a lot of new subscribers in the near future! LOL!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081104/D9487NGO0.html