AT&T Again Hints At Bandwidth Crackdown - Peak, off-peak broadband minutes?
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

AT&T Again Hints At Bandwidth Crackdown
Peak, off-peak broadband minutes?
03:46PM Monday Sep 15 2008 by Karl Bode
tags: competition · business · bandwidth · networking · AT&T U-Verse · AT&T Southeast · AT&T Midwest
AT&T CTO John Donovan talks to Dow Jones about AT&T's efforts to respond to last quarter's dismal DSL subscriber additions. While the company did add 46,000 subscribers total due to U-Verse, they actually lost 90,000 DSL subscribers thanks to the economy, competition, and according to Donovan - flawed execution. Donovan chats up his company's efforts to correct the losses with new promotions, and his fight against the "perception issue" that AT&T service is slower than cable. However, buried in the otherwise unremarkable conversation is yet another reference by AT&T that they're getting ready to unveil some type of new pricing/consumption model.

AT&T execs and lobbyists have quietly started hinting at metered usage in recent months, and have started dialing up the volume on the network congestion bogeyman rhetoric via their PR and policy outfits. The past six months has already seen Dovovan admit that a shift to metered usage was "inevitable", and that the company would begin testing metered billing this fall. The CTO makes it clear that AT&T execs are still mulling their options, but he raises a new possibility -- somehow forcing heavy users into using their connections more during off-peak hours:
Like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, AT&T will be exploring ways to better control Internet usage by its customers. While the cable companies are looking at capping the amount of bandwidth a person has each month, Donovan said the company is looking at tiered services or perhaps pushing for heavy users to tax the network during off-peak hours. "We don't know how it's going to shake out," he said, noting the services could result in cheaper rates for casual users.
Raise of hands on who thinks any new pricing policy by AT&T results in lower broadband prices for anybody? According to Donovan, about 20% of AT&T network resources are gobbled up by 1% of users, though recent data from AT&T's network suggests that P2P consumption across the backbone is actually decreasing -- and most congestion can be handled by capacity upgrades. How exactly AT&T expects to police data consumption via tiers without imposing monthly caps like Comcast and Time Warner Cable isn't exactly clear -- (maybe peak, off peak broadband minutes?) but it is clear that the company has something cooking in the kitchen.

Related:
  1. AT&T, Verizon Get Their GPON On
  2. AT&T: Usage-Based Pricing 'Inevitable'
  3. Is AT&T Hinting At Usage-Based Pricing This Fall?
  4. 18Mbps U-Verse
  5. AT&T Starts Metered Billing Trial In Reno
  6. More Specifics On AT&T's Cap Plans
  7. AT&T Acquires Wi-Fi Operator Wayport
  8. Measuring Caps By E-Mails Sent Doesn't Make Them More Generous
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
bigunk @ 15th Sep 03:40PM:
ATT better watch out

This is a warning to you AT&T. Don't screw us around.
reply
DivineDark @ 15th Sep 03:48PM:
Typical

Sounds like an attempt to avoid upgrading speeds by metering data. The end result is less data going across the network due to increased cost on consumers but the company still rakes in billions.
reply
ninjatutle @ 15th Sep 03:48PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

I agree. I am switching over my family members who are on Comcast to ATT & Directv.

I just switched over my mother's place to Directv and ATT DSl from Comcast Digital Cable and Modem service due to the capagae. I don't live there but I don't want them supporting the capage.

Plus, they were paying $193/month for TV and internet with Comcast. Thats going to hurt Comcast. 1 more household to go.
reply
Steve @ 15th Sep 03:48PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Or else what... ?
reply
sousademiami @ 15th Sep 03:52PM:
So...

Lemme get this straight. AT&T is losing customers like mad, and their solution is a less-for-more approach? That should work.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it did given that these companies can just lie lie lie in their ads and most people are none the wiser.
--
OASAASLLS

reply
bigunk @ 15th Sep 03:54PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

You'll have to wait and see. A good poker player keeps his cards close to the vest and has no tell for his opponents to pick up on.
reply
anon @ 15th Sep 03:56PM:
Capping speeds

They don't have to. My apartment wiring is already capping the speed to 1676 download speed. Doesn't matter what I buy, just can't get the thru put. As usual, some "brilliant" manager figures its better to harm the whole community than address the 1% heavy users. Deal with the problem people!!!
reply
P Ness @ 15th Sep 04:10PM:
Savings for who?

"Raise of hands on who thinks any new pricing policy by AT&T results in lower broadband prices for anybody"

nope they will keep the base price for all users and charge heavy users out the ass.

making more money in the end.

lowering the amount of this so called "limit" till everyone is paying for services just like a cell phone...nickle and dime
--
www.stopfcc.com I do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob.

reply
blips @ 15th Sep 04:10PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by bigunk :

This is a warning to you AT&T. Don't screw us around.
Where are you going to go? There just are not any choices for broadband. You can have cable with a 250GB cap or DSL with metered usage. After ATT does this it probably will not be long before Verizon starts caps.
reply
GlobalMind @ 15th Sep 04:14PM:
Time to switch?

This should be interesting.

I work from home and use my connection all day every day. I depend on it, and generally speaking AT&T's service there has been just fine, no issues really in 4 years.

If they really make enough changes which make using it as I currently do a problem or vastly more expensive, then it might be time to move to something else, which more than likely means Comcast.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson

reply
Neyland85 @ 15th Sep 04:15PM:
U-Verse over IP?

Doesn't ATT unlike cable actually move their video over an IP connection?
reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 15th Sep 04:19PM:
Re: U-Verse over IP?

said by Neyland85 :

Doesn't ATT unlike cable actually move their video over an IP connection?
Well, yeah, but what's that got to do with this?

U-verse Video over IP is a separate service from U-verse High Speed Internet. It's the possibility of caps or other bandwidth restrictions on HSI that we're talking about here.
reply
sapo @ 15th Sep 04:19PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

If you can't make 100k subscriptions disappear in 48 hours I would quit trying to talk big.
reply
jwhorfin @ 15th Sep 04:20PM:
Re: Capping speeds

"they actually lost 90,000 DSL subscribers thanks to the economy, competition"
They lost 90,000 customers because for a few more dollars a month I could go from 2,500 down (Pro) to 13,000 download with Optimum...Boy that's a real tough decision :uhh:
Maybe they should pull their heads out of the sand, or butts or wherever they have them stuck and look around before they have 0 customers!
--
" Laugh while you can ... monkey boy "

reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 15th Sep 04:21PM:
Re: Time to switch?

Unless you're moving like 10 gigabytes per workday, or more, you really have little to worry about.

Unless you're running a commercial server or service (which you shouldn't be, technically, on a residential account), or running torrents 24x7, you won't run into these caps or limits, generally.

People are way, way too worried about this.
reply
BF69 @ 15th Sep 04:25PM:
Re: Time to switch?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

Unless you're moving like 10 gigabytes per workday, or more, you really have little to worry about.

Unless you're running a commercial server or service (which you shouldn't be, technically, on a residential account), or running torrents 24x7, you won't run into these caps or limits, generally.

People are way, way too worried about this.
it depends. If it's a cap like Comcast which is 250 GB then no don't worry. If it's 40 GB like TW yeah then worry. At&t doesn't say what any potential cap will be.
reply
Matt @ 15th Sep 04:29PM:
Re: U-Verse over IP?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

said by Neyland85 :

Doesn't ATT unlike cable actually move their video over an IP connection?
Well, yeah, but what's that got to do with this?

U-verse Video over IP is a separate service from U-verse High Speed Internet. It's the possibility of caps or other bandwidth restrictions on HSI that we're talking about here.
I think what he may be getting at, is how do you differentiate traffic - or rather - how will AT&T.
--
Linux Haters Unite!

reply
anon @ 15th Sep 04:33PM:
Re: Time to switch?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

Unless you're moving like 10 gigabytes per workday, or more, you really have little to worry about.

Unless you're running a commercial server or service (which you shouldn't be, technically, on a residential account), or running torrents 24x7, you won't run into these caps or limits, generally.

People are way, way too worried about this.
Perhaps today, but has your internet usage increased over the last 5 years? Do you think it will increase over the next 5?

I view this fun Cap situation like taxes and roads. Imagine the internet as public roads, and the government as your isp. You can travel on as much road as you want, but taxes will go to maintaining the road (your service fee.) now the government has determined that if you drive over too much road, you can't use it anymore.
reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 15th Sep 04:34PM:
Re: Time to switch?

said by BF69 :

it depends. If it's a cap like Comcast which is 250 GB then no don't worry. If it's 40 GB like TW yeah then worry. At&t doesn't say what any potential cap will be.
Yes I agree -- if TWC actually implements the 40GB tier that they are trialing in Beaumont, they will lose many work at home types.

(Actually the cap in Beaumont right now is probably zero, due to Ike.)
reply
ender7074 @ 15th Sep 04:42PM:
This guy's funny

fight against the "perception issue" that AT&T service is slower than cable.

Ummm it is slower. Lets evaluate. I had 5 meg internet through a cable modem. I received, at a minimum, 5 meg and usually 6-7 meg. On my oh so wonderful 6meg DSL line, I get 4.5meg on a good day. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. DSL is slower unless you have a crappy cable connection or are lucky enough to live next door to the CO.
reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 04:55PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by ninjatutle :

I agree. I am switching over my family members who are on Comcast to ATT & Directv.

I just switched over my mother's place to Directv and ATT DSl from Comcast Digital Cable and Modem service due to the capagae. I don't live there but I don't want them supporting the capage.

Plus, they were paying $193/month for TV and internet with Comcast. Thats going to hurt Comcast. 1 more household to go.
»biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080730/new005.html

High-Speed Internet
-- Added 278,000 high-speed Internet subscribers during the second
quarter -- penetration reached 29% of homes passed or 14.4 million
customers.

Yeah, you're going to stab Comcast in the heart! LMAO! :uhh:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
racart @ 15th Sep 05:12PM:
Interesting

Interesting.. ATT lost 90,000 DSL customers. So what do they do? Add a roadblock (caps) to using their service!!!!

I would think a good Marketing type could spin the recent Comcast caps into a clear ATT Advantage (even though the caps really do not affect most people) and create some interest and desire for ATT’s product….Maybe even adding some subscribers. The Comcast cap could be painted into some sort of gloomy burden placed on users, especially since you have no way of knowing how far away from the cap you are. The fear, no matter how remote, of hitting your cap could allow ATT to win some customers back. They should also plant the seed in users minds that the faster speed only allows you to reach your cap faster!
reply
tad2020 @ 15th Sep 05:15PM:
Metered usage billing, that'll work

Metered usage billing, yeah, that'll work out great.

If people were bailing on your DSL product because they either found cheaper/better else where or cause they couldn't afford DSL at all, then billing them on how much they use it (like cell phones), will only result in a higher and unpredictable bill, and will drive even more customers away. If that's their indent, then it'll be a good move. I won't stick with any ISP that wants to bill on usage at hyper-inflated rates.
reply
en102 @ 15th Sep 05:20PM:
Re: So...

Big corp upper management is smoking some bad stuff.
Unfortunately, management is probably going to try and 'hide' that info, and boost their bottom line on the $/MB hoping that they'll keep customers by kicking sales somehow.

quote:
and according to Donovan - flawed execution

Well - YEAH.
Lets see, where shall I start.
- Uverse TV bundles, but cancelling new subscriptions to VoIP
- No Uverse Voice
- No Indie DSL + POTS --> Uverse transition
- Expensive service in a tight market.
- Difficult to order service (i.e. Internet only)

I was initially excited about service... then found out that voip wasn't available (Uverse Voice), then found out I couldn't port (Vonage or CallVantage) because of DSL line, then found out that AT&T wanted to push TV and not Internet... Now they're only starting to come around. Too late, TWC took my service.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply
tmc8080 @ 15th Sep 05:24PM:
ripe for municipal deployment...

there has got to be some of this comcast / at&t footprint that both companies are trying to squeeze with caps that is ripe for 3rd choice competition (municipal, or otherwise)! they want to play hardball, fine... do it a the risk of 3rd choice deployment! whatever kinds of broadband caps / limits they're trying to impose to protect profit & return on investment goes against the grain of the wholesale costs of bandwidth exchange in peering agreements. most carriers have had the covers upended to show that for the most part, the wholesale broadband industry is a cost neutral prospect, meaning between peers they break even on the bandwidth costs roughly through creative arrangements. so, the main costs associated with internet are mostly last mile.

a negative side effect of both telcos & cablecos getting into each others' businesses is that trying to protect the content which they try to sell by subscription is a conflict of interest when opening the floodgates of ultra speed broadband (10 - 100mbit+plus). caps are a clear indication of the waning interest in cable-tv subscriptions.
reply
anon @ 15th Sep 05:30PM:
Re: This guy's funny

I was thinking the same thing. "Perception issue". All I have to do is go next door to my neighbor that has AT&T DSL and the speed difference is immediately noticeable.
reply
punker @ 15th Sep 05:31PM:
Goverment bail out

soon they might need a goverment bailout :p
reply
en102 @ 15th Sep 05:32PM:
Re: Capping speeds

In my case, they lost be because I went from
- POTS ($40 + $5/Canada + fees = ~$57/month)
- DSL Pro $27/month
= $84

To
- HSI 6Mbps/512kbps
- Digital + Analog TV
- Unlimited VoIP
= $89/month

Do the math.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply
guhuna @ 15th Sep 05:40PM:
Thats fine.

Let them do it, I've just switched my sister and 2 friends OFF of att.

They are just shooting themselves in the feet!
reply
anon @ 15th Sep 05:48PM:
my landlord gives free dsl

15 rooms and all rooms are rented individually and they all have dsl internet. that has to be wrong. It's a three story house. ethernet wires look like spaghetti on the ouside walls. ATT should check this out
reply
u3912974 @ 15th Sep 05:49PM:
my landlord gives free dsl

15 rooms and all rooms are rented individually and they all have dsl internet. that has to be wrong. It's a three story house. ethernet wires look like spaghetti on the outside walls. ATT should check this out
reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 05:53PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by Steve :

Or else what... ?
They'll have even worse add numbers.
reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 05:54PM:
No justification for it...

...just pure greed.
reply
hitachi369 @ 15th Sep 06:01PM:
The second at&t meters I'm off to Comcast.

If I have 2 choices between a metered connection at this point I would choose a faster tier with Comcast unless at&t has a much higher cap. at&t isn't competitive enough to cap there connection. I'm willing to pay a premium with at&t because of the freedom there connection allows. If I lose that freedom, I might aswell get a faster connection.
reply
ninjatutle @ 15th Sep 06:07PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Every little bit helps. You'll see the numbers drop as people switch around from deals to deals. I'm doing my best to get all of my friends and family off of Comcast.

I'm sure Comcast will be calling often to try to lure back my mother :huh: Who's laughing then? Nearly $200/month from a single customer in lost revenue won't be taken so lightly.
reply
BF69 @ 15th Sep 06:15PM:
The irony of the whole thing

Is that at&t PAYS money to ESPN so it's customers can access ESPN360.com which shows streaming content all the time 24/7. Now at&t wants a cap because too many of its customers are accessing online video.

So if I get this straight at&t is telling me "Hey dump Charter for us because we have ESPN360 which you can watch live college football and basketball FREE all the time. Just remember if you actually bother to watch anything on ESPN360 we are going to have to cap your connection for excessive usage."
reply
BF69 @ 15th Sep 06:17PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

$140 a month for cable? That's nuts. There's not that much on TV worth $140.
reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 06:23PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

LOL!
No offense ninja... but $$45.95 less vs 278,000 new HSI *ONLY* customers( x $42.95 per month = $11,940,100.00 per month... HSI ONLY) - they aren't going to notice this single loss.

;)
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
slckusr @ 15th Sep 06:25PM:
Re: Metered usage billing, that'll work

this is exactly what i was thinking.

right now i enjoy my dsl service.

if it becomes a hassle to keep track of how much bandwidth im using, the lower cost isn't going to keep me a subscriber.

hassle > cost ill pay more if i don't have to worry about it. ( within a reasonable amount)

and if your going to meter me charge me less!
reply
odreian615 @ 15th Sep 06:28PM:
Re: This guy's funny

Yes Cable HSI is faster but do you get a CONSTANT 5-7 megs 24/7 cause I seen some(Comcast) drop all he way to 1meg
reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 06:34PM:
Re: This guy's funny

said by odreian615 :

Yes Cable HSI is faster but do you get a CONSTANT 5-7 megs 24/7 cause I seen some(Comcast) drop all he way to 1meg
I get a constant 17.3mbps - if the source can push it.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
ninjatutle @ 15th Sep 06:37PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

At least they wont have my mothers household anymore. Thats all that matters to me. Pay attention to the numbers after the rates increase for our area for video »Comcast Video-Only Subscribers See Rate Hike Tons of people will be fed up and walk.

Uverse is gaining steam. Free DVR, free set top boxes, free wifi modem/router, all IP video transmission (no fuzzy channels :uhh:) We'll see how the numbers play out.

My mothers household is paying $37.89 in equpitment fees alone :o $7 outlet fee? WTH?
reply
tad2020 @ 15th Sep 06:47PM:
Re: Metered usage billing, that'll work

It's very likely than an usage based billing will be at hyper-inflated rates, like anything over $0.10 per GB. I seriously doubt it costs AT&T over $40,000 per day (based on 50% load @ $0.10/GB) to maintain one of their own 10gb links.
reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 06:48PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

AT&T Again Hints At Bandwidth Crackdown
Peak, off-peak broadband minutes?


Key words on that linked item there friend - *VIDEO ONLY*.
HSI, since this article is about internet, from Comcast has not had a hike in the 5 years I have had it.

Can't wait to see you here bitching if AT&T bones you and your Mother with an insane cap or metered billing. ;)
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
aaronwt @ 15th Sep 06:52PM:
Isn't it Slow speed Internet?

ARen't they offering Slow speed INternet?
I had 5mbs down/1mbs ups 11 years ago.
reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 07:08PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Yeah but if more people would vote with their wallets, they couldn't get away with ripping off customers.
reply
ninjatutle @ 15th Sep 07:22PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Well, didkins is rich and can afford all the price hikes. He buys a new Viao every year and watches nothing but Blu Ray.
reply
GlobalMind @ 15th Sep 07:32PM:
Re: Time to switch?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

said by BF69 :

it depends. If it's a cap like Comcast which is 250 GB then no don't worry. If it's 40 GB like TW yeah then worry. At&t doesn't say what any potential cap will be.
Yes I agree -- if TWC actually implements the 40GB tier that they are trialing in Beaumont, they will lose many work at home types.

(Actually the cap in Beaumont right now is probably zero, due to Ike.)
Exactly, kinda why I say "we'll see."
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson

reply
bakalao2k @ 15th Sep 07:32PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by ninjatutle :

Every little bit helps. You'll see the numbers drop as people switch around from deals to deals. I'm doing my best to get all of my friends and family off of Comcast.

I'm sure Comcast will be calling often to try to lure back my mother :huh: Who's laughing then? Nearly $200/month from a single customer in lost revenue won't be taken so lightly.
My last bill was $205
reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 07:40PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by ninjatutle :

Well, didkins is rich and can afford all the price hikes. He buys a new Viao every year and watches nothing but Blu Ray.
dadkins

Not rich - I save my money.
Every 2 years(more or less) I buy me a New VAIO.
Since the new VAIOs I get have BD drives - why not get BDs instead of DVDs? DUH! :p

Comcast HSI has not had a price hike in the 5 years I have had service... where you at?
Comcast HSI has been stepped up to 16mbps(17.3mbps actual speed(I opted for $10 more for speed years ago))... how's that AT&T doing there for ya ninja?

LOL!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 07:42PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by bakalao2k :

said by ninjatutle :

Every little bit helps. You'll see the numbers drop as people switch around from deals to deals. I'm doing my best to get all of my friends and family off of Comcast.

I'm sure Comcast will be calling often to try to lure back my mother :huh: Who's laughing then? Nearly $200/month from a single customer in lost revenue won't be taken so lightly.
My last bill was $205
Mine was $156.58... but I have CDV and Blast too.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 07:46PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by Dogfather :

Yeah but if more people would vote with their wallets, they couldn't get away with ripping off customers.
... still won't offset the 278k *NEW* HSI customers per quarter though, will it?
14.4 million and climbing. Yeah. Comcast is just hurting. :huh:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
rmdir @ 15th Sep 07:48PM:
service

I was just checking the web site to see what deals they have on dry line and OMFG "DSL without local phone
service—perfect for downloading movies."
Wait til the MPAA sees that! I'm sure they mean material in the public domain.
reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 08:03PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Yeah but doesn't AT&T have more HSI subs than Comcast and AT&T only got beat in adds by Comcast when AT&T doubled their intro rates.
reply
sapo @ 15th Sep 08:08PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Doesn't Comcast also make more money per subscription?
reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 08:11PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by sapo :

Doesn't Comcast also make more money per subscription?
You would have to look at each company's annual report but with Comcast's high rates it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
reply
dvd536 @ 15th Sep 08:12PM:
Re: Typical

said by DivineDark :

Sounds like an attempt to avoid upgrading speeds by metering data. The end result is less data going across the network due to increased cost on consumers but the company still rakes in billions.
BINGO!
oversell and no upgrades to network plus pay extra for substandard service.
"We don't have to care, We're the TELEPHONE COMPANY!"
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee

reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 08:16PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by Dogfather :

Yeah but doesn't AT&T have more HSI subs than Comcast and AT&T only got beat in adds by Comcast when AT&T doubled their intro rates.
No idea.
This I found interesting posted above:
"While the company did add 46,000 subscribers total due to U-Verse, they actually lost 90,000 DSL subscribers thanks to the economy, competition, and according to Donovan - flawed execution."

For a net loss of 44,000?

See, some of us look for value in the service(s) we get - and services vary by area.
Bang-For-Buck, here, goes to Comcast.
AT&T here is a whopping 6mbps of you are close enough.

$35 upto 6mbps... no POTS so we get to add that, right?
"SERVICE REQUIRES: DSL modem/gateway/router and qualifying local service from AT&T at time of online order."

$35 and POTS... :hmm:

»www.att.com/Common/indc/popup/in···ions.htm



"Guaranteed Price for 24 Months: Price guarantee applies to monthly recurring charge for a period of 24 months from date of service, and does not include taxes, fees or excessive bandwidth usage charges."

WTF? :hmm:

Yeah... Gots to gets me some of that. ;)
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 08:20PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Value is based on what you're using it for. Comcast got me for $56 for basic HSI unbundled ( the awesome 30% how dare you not have CATV penalty) when I had them. I used to be a Comcast sub so I know they nightmare they were but I've never had AT&T DSL (I had AT&T Broadband which was great before the Comcast nightmare came to town, they didn't have bundling penalties).
reply
dadkins @ 15th Sep 08:29PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Here, POTS used to be SBC.
Sucked the Big Red one!
SBC bought AT&T and renamed themselves to AT&T - still the same crap lines here.

So, since *HERE* AT&T(SBC) sucked too bad to be sucky, AT&T is not going to happen.
No Uverse, and no chance of FiOS, but Comcast hooked this Wood up with Blast anyways - at no additional cost. Uhm... yeah! :o

So, as I sit here typing these posts to y'all, it's coming across a far better service provider than what is now AT&T.

See that little image and link above - WTF is "excessive bandwidth usage charges"?
AT&T? El Capo? :o

Hop on in the SS CapMyLine. We'll all go for a cruise around The Bay! :D
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 09:05PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Someone would have to search far and wide to find POTS that isn't a total rip-off.

You didn't hear about AT&T's new plans? They're going the cap route AND apparently are going to charge overage fees!

I guess doubling the price of intro DSL didn't lose them enough customers.
reply
qworster @ 15th Sep 10:18PM:
So let me get this straight...

AT&T is losing Internet business-so their answer is to make their product a worse value?

I have no idea what kind of drugs their upper management is doing, but they're certainly better then what any of us have!
reply
anon @ 15th Sep 10:23PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

you comcast users just wait comcast will drop their cap even lower.all of then are about to price and cap their way out of business.it would be fucking funny if everybody went back to dialup.they would think dammit then wouldn't they
reply
anon @ 15th Sep 10:53PM:
Re: So let me get this straight...

i think its pretty damn funny myself,all y'all dsl and cable users free ride is just about over unless you want to pay out the ass for internet.all y'all like to brag about how much speed you have.i not going mean shit when they keep lowering your caps or charging per mb.then that high speed will be good for nothing but hitting your cap even faster,or paying more money for overages.

you know my sat connection is looking better everyday,and that's pretty damn bad.phone company's screwed up by not getting dsl to all of their customers over 50% of their voice customers can not get dsl.they could have almost everyone of them,but thought they could compete with cable just another bad decision by phone company's,and they are going to keep loosing people every day.i wonder how close the cost of lost customers is getting to the cost of adding dsl to all off their customers?you know fucking the rural customers looks like its going to bite them in the ass
reply
sapo @ 15th Sep 10:55PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

dammit
reply
Dogfather @ 15th Sep 11:07PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

They won't need to drop the cap any further. With their move to SDV and ditching analog along with other bandwidth saving measures (maybe MPEG4) they can dedicate more 6MHz channels to HSI, opening up that node to headend capacity crunch they're currently experience.
reply
anon @ 15th Sep 11:16PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

we will just have to wait a see wont we.this is starting to look awfully familiar.kind a looks like the gas prices where they are trying to make as much as they can before we run out or change to something else doesn't it
reply
Doctor Four @ 15th Sep 11:17PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Here in Time Warner territory, AT&T U-Verse may be slower
than the competition's fastest offering, and more expensive,
but it is much more reliable.

At least in our neighborhood, Time Warner Cable is losing
customers to U-Verse. And their lawn fridge (VRAD) is only
about half a mile away.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)

reply
myosh @ 15th Sep 11:19PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by blips :

said by bigunk :

This is a warning to you AT&T. Don't screw us around.
Where are you going to go? There just are not any choices for broadband. You can have cable with a 250GB cap or DSL with metered usage. After ATT does this it probably will not be long before Verizon starts caps.
If AT&T implements caps and overages, I'm switching to a local DSL provider like DSL Extreme or Sonic.
reply
XBL2009 @ 15th Sep 11:35PM:
Faster Speed and lower Prices might help

How about 10/2 for $25 and NO CAPS!!!!
reply
anon @ 16th Sep 01:26AM:
Re: ATT better watch out

$193 for cable? Egads! That's more than the monthly rent on my last apartment!
reply
FunnyBones @ 16th Sep 01:25AM:
Caps

I have said many times the caps are a way for the isps to censor your internet. Remember with our money we control them and we are larger then they are....

Not to worry an army is forming and how will they stop us all. :D

Did you know the government did a study with a few hacker tools and were scared crapless what if one day all the people got together over the caps they would be gone for good I guarantee it.
--
Are you part of the cattle?

reply
Qoiz @ 16th Sep 01:52AM:
that would be nice

to the guy who said 10 cents per gb.. I would love that. I would be spending roughly only 2-4$ per month compared to 45 :p
reply
Guy Waters @ 16th Sep 02:02AM:
HSI Competition

We have mandatory HSI which is FTTH with our HOA, so it is very difficult for AT&T and the cable company to compete within our development of 3,000 homes. By going to a metered model and usage caps the providers are only shooting themselves in the foot. Theses are the HSI options I have available. Speeds are down/up.

Fiber via HOA (mandatory, billed as part of monthly dues)
$35.00 8MB/3MB

Cable ($10.00 more if not a video subscriber)
$14.95 256K/128K
$24.95 1.5MB/256K
$34.95 6MB/1MB
$44.95 10MB/1MB
$54.95 10MB/1.5MB

AT&T DSL
$19.95 768K/128K
$25.00 1.5MB/384K
$30.00 3MB/512K
$35.00 6MB/768K

AT&T U-Verse HSI
$25.00 1.5MB/1MB
$30.00 3MB/1MB
$35.00 6MB/1MB
$55.00 10MB/1.5MB
reply
kpfx @ 16th Sep 02:17AM:
Re: This guy's funny

I just hate it when my Cable connection goes from 22 Mbps down to 14 Mbps... what a bunch of crooks!

[end sarcasm]
reply
KrK @ 16th Sep 03:33AM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Airliner into Corporate HQ
reply
NormanS @ 16th Sep 04:27AM:
Re: This guy's funny

said by AnCow :

I was thinking the same thing. "Perception issue". All I have to do is go next door to my neighbor that has AT&T DSL and the speed difference is immediately noticeable.
Really? My sister has Comcast, I have AT&T. I've been on her connection, and she on mine. She has the 8M service, I have 3M. Neither of us have noticed any difference.

Well, I did max out her connection, once (before she upgraded to 8M service), which I download a Knoppix Live CD. Once. None of my fansubbed anime torrents run any faster on her 8M connection than they do on my 3M connection. Mostly due to weak torrents with few peers; I'm not after the popular MPAA shows, or RIAA music tracks, so I don't usually connect with well-populated trackers.

As for overall costs, Comcast "Triple Play", after the year is up, would be about $25 a month more than POTS+DSL+DTV. And before the year is up? About the same price. So we aren't going to budge at this time.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply
wilbilt @ 16th Sep 07:55AM:
Re: So let me get this straight...

said by ROFFL :

i wonder how close the cost of lost customers is getting to the cost of adding dsl to all off their customers?you know fucking the rural customers looks like its going to bite them in the ass
That's a good point. If they made DSL available in areas where this no cable, they could have all the subs. They have started building out a bit here to semi-rural areas, but they are basically on the heels of Comcast deployment.

Why not deploy where this is no competition instead?
--
We were taking a vote when the ground came up and hit us.

reply
Hangmn @ 16th Sep 07:58AM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Comcast is only hurting when its time for merit increases and bonus calculations..for employees that is...when it time to calculate the Execs they are handing out "dividends" and have had a banner year...the fuckers!!!! :uhh:
--
»davescustompc.com

reply
espaeth @ 16th Sep 08:24AM:
Re: Metered usage billing, that'll work

said by tad2020 :

It's very likely than an usage based billing will be at hyper-inflated rates, like anything over $0.10 per GB.
It costs more than $0.10/GB to get connectivity to your house.

If that number was real at all, people would skip right past ATT/Comcast/whoever and buy directly from their upstream provider at that pricing.
reply
Flip1105 @ 16th Sep 08:57AM:
Re: So let me get this straight...

I am trying to figure how they think this can help them retain customers. I can tell you if they cap my Uverse connection and ComCast has a better deal I will jump back to Comcast.
reply
Neyland85 @ 16th Sep 09:28AM:
Re: U-Verse over IP?

Exactly, IP traffic is IP traffic it's a 'burden on the system'. How is my watching a HD show from ATT different than me watching a HD show from iTunes?
reply
Matt @ 16th Sep 09:58AM:
Re: U-Verse over IP?

said by Neyland85 :

Exactly, IP traffic is IP traffic it's a 'burden on the system'. How is my watching a HD show from ATT different than me watching a HD show from iTunes?
Well, actually that is different. When it comes from iTunes it has to traverse their interconnections to make it from the Apple servers to the AT&T network. Basically, it has to travel across the public internet.

For their TV streams, they pull them all in one time from the networks, distribute them to the local U-Verse enabled central offices, and then to each house. This way uses an order of magnitude less capacity.
--
Linux Haters Unite!

reply
s13 @ 16th Sep 11:09AM:
Re: ATT better watch out

He also uses Opera, which blows ass.
reply
tad2020 @ 16th Sep 11:30AM:
Re: Metered usage billing, that'll work

said by espaeth :

If that number was real at all, people would skip right past ATT/Comcast/whoever and buy directly from their upstream provider at that pricing.
You can, the problem is you have to buy in bulk and have to have the line installed ($1000's) from them to you.
reply
anon @ 16th Sep 11:56AM:
Bandwidth

There are two problems here. First thing is that for instance I am an AT&T DSL customer so this applies directly to me. However, I am about 5000 feet from the central office and I am not sharing bandwidth between myself and the CO. Now, at the CO they have the ability to provide a massive amount of bandwidth using OC12, OC48 etc. I live in a town of 15,000 people and a university with 16,000 students on top of that so there are a ton of users here. AT&T has the ability to provide a massive amount of bandwidth at that CO relatively cheaply. I don't know their network traffic statistics but with the scenario I just described it should not be hard for them to provide massive bandwidth for all those users without network congestion and cheaply.

My guess is that there are a few users using a large proportion of the bandwidth that is available at most CO's. However, I doubt that the aggregate bandwidth of ALL users comes close to maxing out their central office bandwidth OR especially not their backbone network across the nation and around the world.

This B&*&S&%& of penalizing PAYING customers when their network is not likely to be overwhelmed is crap. I think AT&T just wants to make more money. I understand that they have obligations to their shareholders and the board of directors and CEO are afraid of a proxy vote and getting their A&* kicked out in a hurry if there is the slightest decline in earning or in stock prices. This is the paranoia of money making that says we should never lose money and there should always be a profit and always growth all the time which is completely UNsustainable. Every now and then things have to retract some for a while. Anyway, getting away from the obvious problems of public financing through issued stocks.

AT&T is expanding their UVerse and using this supposed bandwidth issue as an excuse to find ways to make more money to fund UVerse and other things I imagine. However, they need to watch out. If there become 100 minor small print details that are gotchas in their bandwidth policy they are going to lose a lot of customers including myself. I don't use that much bandwidth. I download files perhaps 3 or 4 times per week and some updates. Yes, I do use Youtube a good bit but with a 3mpbs DSL connection it is not going to swamp their precious ATM connections at the CO to their backbone network. Even if nearly all the AT&T users in this town were downloading from youtube I doubt it would be a serious problem.

AT&T, watch what you do or you will lose the $45/mo revenue stream that you have from me! I am not stupid and don't try to hoodwink me because a few users out there use 100X more than I do.
reply
koma3504 @ 16th Sep 12:04PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

excessive bandwidth usage charges

yea what is this and what is the limit ???
I like how they d

Looks like Ill be re-adding another dsl line to my house so I can be sure to avoid this.

I wonder how they will do this for Uverse users since TV runs over ip and uses bandwith. And you can record up to 4 streas at anyone time.
--
† Koma †
If YOu Don't Think It's Possable!! It's Acually A Reality!!The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay!!
Ya Don't Know The signal Till Ya Ride It!!
Voice Break's There's Trouble!!!!

reply
hottboiinnc @ 16th Sep 12:17PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

and you can back this up how?
reply
hottboiinnc @ 16th Sep 12:20PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

And what if ATT kicks them off their networks? You must forget that ATT does NOT have to give them access to the POTS network to sell DSL. :o
reply
netgear @ 16th Sep 12:21PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by bigunk :

You'll have to wait and see. A good poker player keeps his cards close to the vest and has no tell for his opponents to pick up on.
Problem is, they know what your cards are, bigunk. One says "I'm Stickin' With Ya!" The other says "See ya!"

That ain't a good hand, even in Baseball.
reply
LeeWL @ 16th Sep 12:51PM:
Re: This guy's funny

I also have the same "perception" of slower internet speeds.

Of course, that could also be that I can only get 3.0 service here, even though, the neighborhood, which the part I am in is 2 years old, has fiber at the curb and according to the techs I have talked to at the box beside my driveway wher ehte fiber terminates, the box is upgraded to the latest software and is 6.0 capable. But inspite of all that, because someone has not set some field in a database, we do not even have the option for 6.0 when you call and they give me no reason why.

BTW, I live about 4 miles from Cisco's RTP (and NetApp, and Ericssony's, etc, etc, ) operations, which makes it seem all the worse somehow, knowing that all that massive bandwidth is right in the area.
reply
djrobx @ 16th Sep 01:13PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

quote:
Uverse is gaining steam. Free DVR, free set top boxes, free wifi modem/router, all IP video transmission (no fuzzy channels ) We'll see how the numbers play out.
The U-verse additional set tops aren't free anymore.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.

reply
sapo @ 16th Sep 02:04PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by s13 :

He also uses Opera, which blows ass.
Now there is a dumb comment.
reply
s13 @ 16th Sep 02:16PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

It's true, documentary FACT.
reply
sapo @ 16th Sep 02:19PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

Blowing ass might be documented in porn, I don't know about anywhere else.
reply
s13 @ 16th Sep 02:24PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

They use Opera on porn sets, so there you go.
reply
Neyland85 @ 16th Sep 03:31PM:
Re: U-Verse over IP?

Bottom line is they are becoming content providers and not ISPs, and with that content provider role they are using a traffic 'burden' argument to say I'm going to charge you more money to get your content from that guy than from me.
reply
myosh @ 16th Sep 03:44PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

said by hottboiinnc :

And what if ATT kicks them off their networks? You must forget that ATT does NOT have to give them access to the POTS network to sell DSL. :o
If AT&T kicks Sonic and/or DSL Extreme off their network, you're going to see a howl of protest from consumer groups and customers of Sonic/DSL Extreme, followed by an investigation by the California PUC. I don't think AT&T is that dumb... but we are talking about AT&T :huh:
reply
anon @ 16th Sep 04:21PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

I agree. Every account lost is less money for them. And in turn if someone asks you about Comcast you will tell them to not choose them.
reply
Dampier @ 16th Sep 05:13PM:
Re: Time to switch?

10GB per workday sounds like plenty right now, but it will be next to nothing within 24 months. Use a net appliance like Netflix or another video on demand provider, download an HD movie as part of your service, and you've just consumed 8GB for 720p HD. Want to watch video online? That will consume plenty as well.

I agree that running a torrent server 24/7 will blow through any usage cap, but there are plenty of totally legitimate applications that will as well, from online backup to video streaming.

Usage caps remain unjustified in an industry that is now looking for new higher profits from existing customers, all while creating a bandwidth crisis out of nothing but lobbyist hot air.

I have never seen a bandwidth cap that has saved any customer one penny - it generally costs a growing percentage of customers plenty, as the Internet continues to grow, along with the bandwidth many applications consume.

The best way to stop a forest fire of bandwidth caps is to fight them BEFORE they have a chance to get established. That means contacting the FCC and elected officials to consider investigations into the anti-competitive behavior such impediments provide.

In a global economy where the USA continues to fall further behind in broadband, installing artificial usage caps to raise a pile of cash only puts us more behind than ever.
reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 16th Sep 05:45PM:
Re: Time to switch?

said by Dampier :

10GB per workday sounds like plenty right now, but it will be next to nothing within 24 months. Use a net appliance like Netflix or another video on demand provider, download an HD movie as part of your service, and you've just consumed 8GB for 720p HD. Want to watch video online? That will consume plenty as well.
First, I don't think people download HD movies or watch HD video streams for work. I certainly don't.

For home entertainment, I agree that some part of the population would LIKE to do all their video watching online. But there are competing business models at play here. Plus, for most people, a STB plus a big HD TV in a comfortable living room is a much better viewing experience than a PC and a monitor, especially when you can get a few hundred channels (and a few dozen HD channels) for around $100/month, with no bandwidth issues -- it's all you can watch/record.

I agree that running a torrent server 24/7 will blow through any usage cap, but there are plenty of totally legitimate applications that will as well, from online backup to video streaming.
Most of the "cap ragers" are in fact the 24x7 bittorrent types. Very close to zero non-bittorrent users are going to get anywhere near 250GB/month.

Usage caps remain unjustified in an industry that is now looking for new higher profits from existing customers, all while creating a bandwidth crisis out of nothing but lobbyist hot air.

I have never seen a bandwidth cap that has saved any customer one penny - it generally costs a growing percentage of customers plenty, as the Internet continues to grow, along with the bandwidth many applications consume.

The best way to stop a forest fire of bandwidth caps is to fight them BEFORE they have a chance to get established. That means contacting the FCC and elected officials to consider investigations into the anti-competitive behavior such impediments provide.

In a global economy where the USA continues to fall further behind in broadband, installing artificial usage caps to raise a pile of cash only puts us more behind than ever.
This is just hot air and spin. Providing Internet access is a business, and the providers get to choose their competing business models and offerings, and you the consumer get to make a choice. No dark "corporations suck" conspiracies, please. Try living in a country where everything's provided by the state and you'll be much less happy, I am sure.

Personally, I would welcome a high cap like the 250GB one Comcast is implementing. Right now, it's like an all-you-can-eat buffet, with no one to watch that you aren't grabbing food off the buffet and handing it out the window to a large line of people who didn't pay the entry price, and no one to kick out the 400 pound guy who eats the equivalent of 15 servings three times a day. Those of us who like to pay for OUR use of the buffet, and aren't complete gluttons, would be happy to see those guys kicked out.
reply
espaeth @ 16th Sep 06:10PM:
Re: Time to switch?

said by Dampier :

10GB per workday sounds like plenty right now, but it will be next to nothing within 24 months. Use a net appliance like Netflix or another video on demand provider, download an HD movie as part of your service, and you've just consumed 8GB for 720p HD. Want to watch video online? That will consume plenty as well.
As long as you're willing to pay for that extra usage in 24 months, I don't think there will be a problem. If you're expecting that you can drastically increase your usage and have it not affect pricing, I'm afraid that's a pipe dream.

said by Dampier :

Usage caps remain unjustified in an industry that is now looking for new higher profits from existing customers, all while creating a bandwidth crisis out of nothing but lobbyist hot air.
Industry lobbying aside, there are real costs associated with providing the service. There is a finite pool of resources to be divided amongst subscribers -- those who are consuming 250GB today are not profitable customers. The system can only support a limited number of folks pulling that kind of usage without major upgrades and major changes to the price structure of the service. The move towards caps isn't a move to push higher profit margins, it's simply a matter of trying to stop a limited number of folks from bleeding a significant amount of profit out of the system.
reply
elray @ 16th Sep 09:38PM:
Re: my landlord gives free dsl

said by Blake SF :

15 rooms and all rooms are rented individually and they all have dsl internet. that has to be wrong. It's a three story house. ethernet wires look like spaghetti on the ouside walls. ATT should check this out
You would prefer that he did not provide "free" dsl, instead leaving each individual to order his own, full-price, 1-2 year term service?
reply
nevtxjustin @ 16th Sep 10:53PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

So then its..."its not over till the fat lady blows"?
reply
EPS @ 16th Sep 11:22PM:
Re: So let me get this straight...

Free ride? People are getting DSL internet for free? I had to pay for it monthly!

You may not know this, but DSL has some serious limitations on distances. This makes it very difficult to deploy in spread-out areas, unless you deploy remote terminals, which have their own issues and less capacity. Also, signal boosters used to extend the range of POTS are also incompatible with DSL, so there's even more issues. DSL is a kind of kludge technology. (DOCSIS is as well, but it's limitations are not nearly as bad as DSL) Though I still seriously doubt your 50%+ figure...
reply
NGW1031982 @ 16th Sep 11:26PM:
I just don't get the long run advantage...

Really, Cable intern capping the speeds at least makes since. Because of the setup, they could be preventing a lot of complaints with a cat at about a solid 2Mb/s down, and 1.5Mb up. That's extreme, but this is an example where everyone in the selected block of surface is using Cable Internet. Everyone would be able to do anything they wanted online, with no lagging. Obviously, dependent on the amount of customers they adjust the cap.
DSL goes from point to point, no sharing. (On the consumer end that is.) It's limit is distance, and the CO cap settings. I can get over 9mb/s down, but the speed cap is at 6mb/s. That's fine, as it's a consent speed link. But, there is NO reason to cap anything on DSL.
As for metering, that to me is nothing other then a way to rip off customer. People are going to get fed up, and most likely both cable and DSL will loose to optical Internet. If things go to caps and metering,as soon s I am able to I will get FIOS to keep from "over charges".
reply
Krellan @ 17th Sep 04:09AM:
Wishlist for AT&T

DSL still has plenty of potential, if only Ma Bell would do the following:

1) For those close to the CO, embrace the newest very fast DSL technology, like they have in Japan, for maximum speed.

2) For those far away from the CO, have the service steadily degrade, down to analog modem bandwidth if necessary, without dropping out completely. Even if a customer is too far away, or wires too poor, to get frequencies above the voice band, they could still enjoy the always-on convenience of DSL, even though they couldn't get the speed.

3) Put a limited form of DSL on every landline in the country, automatically, that wouldn't conflict with existing voice (G.Lite?). New customers would only need to buy a modem and plug it in. The DSL service would always be "waiting in the wings". The wait time for installation would then be zero!

4) Save the few remaining payphones. Activate DSL service on lines going to all remaining payphones. Install a wireless hotspot on each of them. Now, every payphone in the country is also a wireless hotspot.

5) Emphasize the two-way nature of DSL, versus the one-way nature of most cable systems. Emphasize that DSL gives you your own wires going back to the CO, and doesn't force you to share your cable bandwidth with the rest of the neighborhood. Advertise the fact that the AUP of DSL allows you to run servers and VPN connections, unlike cable. Advertise the fact that DSL is best for two-way communication such as video calls with Skype. Advertise the fact that a good DSL line will have a faster ping time than cable, which means better gameplay for online games.

6) Once the equipment is in place, adding DSL to an existing voice line should cost nearly nothing. Have a DSL starter plan that severely undercuts cable, such as maybe $5.00/month for a minimal 128/128 connection. Many casual users don't care about speed, and just appreciate the convenience of an always-on connection that doesn't require dialing. Cable would have a tough time matching that price. That will also help to bury the last few analog modem holdouts.

7) Voice phone should be secondary to DSL, not the other way around. Given that most people carry cellphones these days, there's really no reason to have a landline other than 911 and DSL. AT&T's corporate structure, and staff training, is still built around voice. AT&T needs to think of themselves more as an ISP and less as a phone company.

Think they'll do any of this?
reply
anon @ 17th Sep 09:39AM:
Re: So let me get this straight...

said by EPS :

Free ride? People are getting DSL internet for free? I had to pay for it monthly!

You may not know this, but DSL has some serious limitations on distances. This makes it very difficult to deploy in spread-out areas, unless you deploy remote terminals, which have their own issues and less capacity. Also, signal boosters used to extend the range of POTS are also incompatible with DSL, so there's even more issues. DSL is a kind of kludge technology. (DOCSIS is as well, but it's limitations are not nearly as bad as DSL) Though I still seriously doubt your 50%+ figure...
i mean free bandwidth ride.if they kept on raising prices and lowering caps they are just going to put themselves out of business

and i know all about dsl limitations if you are over 18,000 feet from a co you don't get dsl,and that's exactly what im talking about.phone company's are too worried about compeating with cable in speed they thought they were going to compete with cable,its hot ever going to happen with old copper lines,and customer availability.there are a lot of people that live over 18,000 feet from a co.phone company's would have been better off putting the money in servicing all of their customers first then trying to add more speed

also i didn't mean 50%,its about 50 million of their voice customers can not get dsl
reply
splat1622 @ 17th Sep 09:38AM:
Re: Wishlist for AT&T

no prob not,but it make perfect sense to me.it wouldn't bother me if all i got was 300kbps to whatever as long as it was a always on connection.im on sat. now at 60.00 a month for 1mb connection and 200mb download threshold in 24 hrs,and go over that they reduce connection to about 50kbps for 24 hrs,and not to mention the peak time on sat. is awful too.it will start at about 1 pm and go till 12 am with speeds going down to about 200kbps.so yes i would love at least a 200 or 300kbps always on connection with dsl for a hell of a lot cheaper than im paying for this Hughes crap

here is one of my speed test for hughes sat at 60.00 a month this is all i ever get just from 12 am to 1 pm from there it goes downhill all the way to about 200kbps

:::.. Download Stats ..:::
Download Connection is:: 822 Kbps about 0.8 Mbps (tested with 1024 kB)
Download Speed is:: 100 kB/s
Tested From:: »testmy.net/ (Main)
Test Time:: 2008/09/17 - 7:48am
Bottom Line:: 14X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 10.24 sec
Tested from a 1024 kB file and took 10.203 seconds to complete
Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 82.12 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com)
D-Validation Link:: »testmy.net/stats/id-DULIO3NPW
User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648) [!]
reply
splat1622 @ 17th Sep 09:45AM:
Re: So let me get this straight...

said by Flip1105 :

I am trying to figure how they think this can help them retain customers. I can tell you if they cap my Uverse connection and ComCast has a better deal I will jump back to Comcast.
its not going to help them at all.they are just slowly putting themselves out of business.phone company's screwed up by not getting all of their customers dsl because there is allot of the rural people that will never get cable so dsl would be their only choice beside sat. and wisp in which are not very good for a heavy user
reply
anon @ 17th Sep 02:25PM:
Wake up

They're loosing customers because their service is pitiful. Bandwidth has got progressively worse. The speed is so terrible I'm actually considering Comcast.
reply
u3912974 @ 17th Sep 06:21PM:
AT&T Again Hints At Bandwidth Cracked?

is there a difference between someone hacing your bank account and someone hacking your internet account. you
'll say that you are for network neutrality and free atm access to your personal bank account for all i bet.
reply
Joe270 @ 20th Sep 03:29PM:
die att

AT&T is losing Internet business-so their answer is to make their product a worse value?

^So true.

at&t needs to step up to the game regarding Broadband services. The maximum speed at&t has is 6mbits while other broadband providers offer 8mbit, 12mbit, 18mbits. at&t hasn't upgrade their speed in years. I pay $29 for 3mbit. For $29 I can get 6mbits+ for the same price.

Also now.. at&t want us to pay phone service in advance now.

Goodbye at&t. I cant wait to ditch the death star.
reply
Joe270 @ 20th Sep 03:30PM:
Re: die att

doh wrong thread.
reply
Joe270 @ 20th Sep 03:31PM:
.

deleted. wrong thread.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 20th Sep 06:52PM:
Re: ATT better watch out

How do you figure the Cali PUC has any foot to stand on? The FCC GAVE ATT the RIGHT to KICK anyone off their network.

Cali can't do shit. the FCC has the final say as far as that. Why do you think that so many resellers are not offering service anymore as far as DSL on ATT's network they were kicked off because they could not afford the fees ATT wants or would not allow them to resell period.

ATT can do the same thing to Snoic and DSLExtreme and there is nothing you nor the state is going to do to ATT to make them change their mind.

ALso what happens when more and more areas are going to U-Verse those ares will NOT get Sonic.net and DSL Extreme you'll be screwed and forced to ATT's.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC