backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Guttersnipe.. on Nov 6 at 12:36 PM

Unlimited internet suffers another blow

AT&T is beginning trials for metered internet access in Reno, Nevada, where it plans to tighten the clamps on the “small minority” of customers who use a “disproportionately large amount” of its bandwidth capacity.

In a letter filed electronically with the FCC (PDF), AT&T attorney Jack Zimmerman says the company will provide customers in the trial with a written notice of their service limitations, along with another written warning when they reach the 80 percent mark. For customers that exceed their bandwidth allotment more than once – the size of which varies based on the service level, starting with a 20 GB limit for 768kbps customers and topping out at 150 GB for 6 mbps lines – they will find an additional charge of $1 per gigabyte on their monthly bill.

Customers unwilling to participate have the option of cancelling their service, and those that choose to do so will have their early termination fee waived.

AT&T says its trial “underscores [its] commitment to bring bigger, faster and smarter broadband networks to more and more communities at affordable rates.” According to DSLReports, the company has been hinting about a shift since last summer, if not earlier.

With more than 14.7 million subscribers, AT&T is the largest ISP in the United States.  It joins Time Warner and Comcast, among others, in a seemingly growing list of companies experimenting with – or already implementing – bandwidth caps in order to curb what they consider to be “excessive” internet usage.

The U.S. ISPs’ seemingly gradual descent from the realm of unlimited bandwidth, a number of observers – including this writer – wonder if ISPs are placing themselves on a collision course with the next generation of internet applications, of which high-quality video is expected to feature prominently.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

All this
By bbomb on 11/4/2008 8:36:52 AM , Rating: 5
is going to do is make sure that we fall further and further behind the rest of the world bandwidth wise. We are already near the bottom right? While the rest of the world enjoys bandwidth rich entertainment, US ISP's will reduce ours to the point that dial up starts to sound like a good idea again.




RE: All this
By jadeskye on 11/4/2008 8:48:30 AM , Rating: 3
I agree, and it's not just you americans my friend. Over here in the UK while we still enjoy the luxury of unlimited internet, it's throttled horribly after very small amounts of data.

The australians also experiance hell with their ISPs.

It seems like the whole world falls behind japan :p


RE: All this
By xsilver on 11/4/2008 9:16:40 AM , Rating: 3
so true - and the $1/gb isnt THAT bad.

here in OZ the worst offender is $0.15 / MB
thats right - per MB.

after many complaints a lot of ISP's have put a cap on that at $150 per month (yes so they're only allowed to rip you off a further $150 a month)
but a few still remain where there is no cap, so it is entirely possible that you download windows 7 beta off msdn and it will literally cost you $500


RE: All this
By nah on 11/4/2008 9:29:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually--this is what is known as price discrimination--it exists if 3 basic conditions are satisfied--

--the product is supplied by a monopolist
-- it must be possible to split consumers into separate markets
--each separate market has a different price elasticity od demand

what is occurring here is second degree price discrimination--consumers pay one price for certain units, and other prices for further units


RE: All this
By StevoLincolnite on 11/4/2008 9:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
In Australia they get away with it because: ALL ISP's have bandwidth limitations, be it your download quota, and then once reached throttle your speeds to Dial-Up speeds for the remainder of the month, or you are charged excessive fees like $1 per gigabyte all the way up to $150 a gigabyte. - The catch? They have it written in the "Terms and Conditions" when you signed up that conditions may change and so may your limitations on your connection.

However our Monopoly which is Telstra is probably the largest thief, with a 25gb limit on most of it's plans, and that also includes uploads. - I'm personally with Westnet (Best ISP in AUS!) and I have 25gb during On-Peak Periods, and 40gb during off-peak periods which doesn't include uploads for only $80 at 1.5mbps, plus a "Freezone" with free gaming servers, radio, files like: Linux Distro's, patches, trailers, mods and demo's and other such things. - Good thing about that is that you get the files at your full connection speed and it doesn't add to your download usage.

I usually just set uTorrent up to download over-night during my off-peak periods and game during my on-peak periods, works well thus far.

And with the National Broadband Network *still* waiting to start construction, I'm hoping Terria will win the bid, then Telstra won't have a monopoly on our Internet Infrastructure which hopefully Leeds to more downloads at a lower price.

Then you have the Great Australian Firewall... Which is *supposed* to be censoring all content for all Australians that is deemed un-suitable for children whether we like it or not.
Funny thing is that tests have shown that our Internet speeds dropped at around 30% in some cases, sometimes even up to 70% or more, plus legitimate websites are also blocked.

And yet, I'm still feeling large amounts of jealousy over the 200gb limits that some of the American ISP's are starting to use, Imagine how much pr0n I could download to fill up my HDD?


RE: All this
By Mitch101 on 11/4/2008 10:48:19 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe its time to screw them back.

One customer gets an internet connection and shares it with 5 of his neighbors. Providing none of them are high bandwidth people. It screws them out of 4 internet service connections.

You want bandwidth limits ok with WiFi we can limit your subscriber base.


RE: All this
By heffeque on 11/4/2008 3:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
There's no bandwidth cap in Spain and I'm sure that there will never be. P2P is extremely widespread and bandwidth caps + P2P are a bad combination.


RE: All this
By Mitch101 on 11/5/2008 9:01:30 AM , Rating: 4
heffeque my Wifi wont reach Spain. Even on the max setting. Can you put in some repeaters and will split the internet connection? ;)


RE: All this
By heffeque on 11/5/2008 9:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
Sure! No problem ;-D


RE: All this
By LordanSS on 11/4/2008 2:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
Holy crap...

$80 for 1.5mbps with cap? Dang...

And here I thought I was being robbed for paying $50 for 4mb down/512k up, unlimited cap. Far as I know tho, it's illegal to cap your downloads/uploads here in Brazil (for now)...

Dang...


RE: All this
By kalak on 11/5/2008 1:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Far as I know tho, it's illegal to cap your downloads/uploads here in Brazil

Are you fukking nuts ?!
ALL ISP here do cap !!!!


RE: All this
By rhangman on 11/4/2008 7:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
On unlimited Telstra ADSL2+ here. Not cheap though. Oddly enough cheaper than any other ADSL2+ plan with the kind of download possibilities. Not even sure if anyone else offers unlimited ADSL2.


RE: All this
By StevoLincolnite on 11/4/2008 10:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
Telstra do not have any "unlimited" plans, they claim it as "Unlimited" but when you reach say... 25gb you are dropped to 64k speeds, or if you are paying extra, you may have 60gb of downloads, which after you reach that you end up paying $150 per gigabyte. - They also include uploads, Telstra has worked like this for many many years.

Soon Westnet will be offering ADSL 2+ using the Telstra DSLAMS, which will be refreshing from the typical Optus ULL and iiNet's infrastructure, hopefully Westnet uses a similar pricing scheme as the iiNet or Optus ULL, would give me a choice to upgrade to ADSL 2+ and considering I am around 2km's from the exchange I should enjoy around 16-18mbps speeds.

TPG have some good plans however, they are offering ADSL 2+ connections with a download limit of 200gb - which consists of 60gb of downloads during on-peak and 140gb during off-peak hours for $80 a month, If you go for the 100gb plan the shaping speed is 256k! - I wish more ISP's would be so generous with the shaping speed, however TPG's customer service is practically non-existent.


RE: All this
By nangryo on 11/4/2008 9:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about lucky, here in my country (Indonesia), the biggest ISP (The current monopolistic one) Charge an arm and leg for crappy connection. About US$ 10 a month for 1GB quota for 512/32kbps (up/down) connection speed. Or US$90 (including tax) for private unlimited service or US$180 for commercial service with the same up and down speed.

Not to mention horrible customer service (Takes about 2 two 4 (yes four) days to solve connection problem, and no, it's not available on weekend, so you have to wait)

You all so damn lucky


RE: All this
By kalak on 11/4/2008 1:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Here, in Brazil, I have to pay about $40 for 1GB (yes, ONLY 1GB). After that, they slow down the connection to 200kbps - about 3 times dial up connection. If we have $1/1GB plans here... Oh, foock !


RE: All this
By gmyx on 11/4/2008 8:51:50 AM , Rating: 3
Not just US. Up here in Canada we've been dealing with caps for a long time (I remember my ISP back in 2002 implementing a hard 5gb cap). Both Bell and Rogers actively throttle and cap the bandwidth today including sky high prices and dirt low speeds - so don't feel alone!


RE: All this
By mmntech on 11/4/2008 11:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with Cogeco and have a 60gb per month combined cap at "up to" 10mbps. The actual speed is less than 5mbps. Costs $44.95 bundled with cable TV. I know for sure Cogeco throttles P2P.
Bell is particularly infamous. DSL tends to get slower the further away you are from the hub. CBC Marketplace recently did a test and Bell I think only measured 10-20% of the advertised speed. I have 3G service for my iPhone through Rogers/Fido, which costs $30/mo for a 1gb cap. It's slow as hell, even in the city. I think I'm going to cut it back to the 512mb plan since I don't use it that much.

This is precisely why I can't see digital download services for movies and games replacing disc copies any time soon. North American internet services are too slow, too expensive, and the caps are too restrictive to make these services practical. We're actually going backwards when it comes to net service.


RE: All this
By Hieyeck on 11/4/2008 12:21:26 PM , Rating: 1
You guys have to be living in the boonies. Rogers is providing me with better than the advertised 10Mbps. I do shell out for extra bandwidth, but there's a $25 limit on overuse charges, so once I'm over 115~ GB (I consistently hit 180s, average at 200 GBs) I stop paying for extra use charges, while maintaining my speed. Torrent throttling isn't going to go away, I gave up trying to bitch out Rogers and found alternatives. My GF occasionally torrents shows when she's staying the weekend, and still hits 5~ mbps (of course, depending on seeds/leeches). I've found torrents are throttled only during peak hours, but since I don't torrent much (haven't personally used it in... 6 months?), I don't care.

So the best answer to throttling and shitty service? GOOGLE HARDER.


RE: All this
By Flunk on 11/4/2008 3:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Funnily enough I have the same ISP as you (Cogeco) and I don't have any of those problems. I get 10Mbps speeds (down) consistently and I know with a certainty that they don't call you on the bandwidth cap unless you exceed it by 10x (Yes, I really did that at one point).

I think it's important to note that where you live is a very important factor in broadband performance (I live in a small sparsely populated city).


RE: All this
By SandmanWN on 11/4/2008 9:15:20 AM , Rating: 3
We need a class action lawsuit on behalf of the people right about now.

Its goal should be the following:
1) The cap should be based on your internet package. 6/8/15/25/50 MB connections should have different caps.

2) Any limit cannot be less than the limit of your package. Ex, a 6MB package at full speed for the entire billing period.

3) If they do not disclose your current bandwidth usage with up to the minute info, just like they do with cellphones, then it should be illegal to impose any limitations.

We need to impose our own rights before they start shoving restrictions down our throats.


RE: All this
By Spivonious on 11/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: All this
By Regs on 11/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: All this
By Regs on 11/4/2008 4:37:45 PM , Rating: 1
Ok I forgot, people think the government or local government have no control over what you can get in terms of FIOS, Cable, or telecommunications. These companies can only do so much and compete for so much with their set of limitations.

You guys are not looking for regulations or less limitations, but consumer right laws. When are people going to realise you're not going to get more for less? There is always a trade off.


RE: All this
By soydeedo on 11/4/2008 9:41:32 AM , Rating: 3
There are times when the market will not always adjust itself, and this is probably one of those times. Most people only have two choices for internet connections and now it seems that the larger of the two [probably because of market forces - e.g. price, value] is now giving users no second option with these usage caps.

Is it not our right to know if we've gone over those limits? Where else did this poster ask for government intervention? You seem like you devised these limiting schemes yourself as much as you defend them.


RE: All this
By Spivonious on 11/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: All this
By soydeedo on 11/4/2008 10:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
Read my post again. All I claimed as our right was the ability to check our usage with up to the minute statistics so we know where we stand on our usage.


RE: All this
By StevoLincolnite on 11/4/2008 10:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
Most Australian ISP's offer "Bandwidth Meters" - My ISP offers a Gadget for Windows Sidebar which shows my usage in real time, how much I have remaining, How fast I'm downloading and uploading, etc.


RE: All this
By jimbojimbo on 11/5/2008 10:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
That's only good if you're NOT using a router like 90% of homes probably are and you won't know about the traffic that occurs at your cable/DSL modem before it gets to your PC. Your computer will always be under.


RE: All this
By StevoLincolnite on 11/5/2008 8:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter how you have your connection set-up, the ISP is the one that is recording your usage which is displayed to you in real time.


RE: All this
By bplewis24 on 11/4/2008 11:39:43 AM , Rating: 3
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest and naive posts I've read on this subject.

Brandon


RE: All this
By Spivonious on 11/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: All this
By kalak on 11/4/2008 1:48:42 PM , Rating: 1
Agree...


RE: All this
By kalak on 11/5/2008 11:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
How could I AGREE with a +3 post and have a +1 post ??!!!
WTH ???!!!


RE: All this
By CascadingDarkness on 11/5/2008 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
Because people are using the system properly for once. They don't consider your one word reply "worth reading".


RE: All this
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 12:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Uh the market would adjust itself if not for the government decided that it was good for competition to eliminate it and give cable and DSL operators a monopoly in their areas. If anyone could come into an area and start their own service provided they paid to put the lines in the ground or rent someone elses, then we would have far better internet and far better prices.

The government got in the way here. Not the market failing to regulate itself.


RE: All this
By vapore0n on 11/4/2008 9:45:53 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah!
Let the market run free!!
We don't need the government watching over us. We don't need more regulations.
I say we let the free market run itself.
Just like the housing market ran free all these years and...

oh...that didn't work you say...

Sometimes we need to keep these big companies in check. Else they will run all over us.


RE: All this
By Spivonious on 11/4/2008 10:07:07 AM , Rating: 1
Oh wait, the government under Clinton passed laws that gave incentives to banks to offer mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

If you think the free market caused the current crisis, you couldn't be more wrong.


RE: All this
By stonemetal on 11/4/2008 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clinton passed laws that gave incentives to banks


Uh, what part of incentives/law suits aginst those who don't is free market?


RE: All this
By Spivonious on 11/4/2008 11:38:41 AM , Rating: 1
That's my point: incentives are not part of a free market.

It seems that even Republicans are for big government these days. That's why my vote is going to the Libertarian party.


RE: All this
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 2:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
So hows it feel to throw a vote away ? I should try it next time. Maybe roll up the ballot and wipe my arse with it ?


RE: All this
By rdeegvainl on 11/4/2008 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying that anyone who doesn't vote for the guy who wins threw their vote away?


RE: All this
By Spuke on 11/4/2008 2:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So hows it feel to throw a vote away ?
So how does it feel to be a sheep, constantly voting for one of two parties that continuously do not do the job we want them to do? Or is finger pointing considered doing the job?


RE: All this
By heffeque on 11/4/2008 5:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't describe it better.


RE: All this
By Spivonious on 11/4/2008 3:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to throw your vote away is to not vote at all.


RE: All this
By Cuddlez on 11/4/2008 6:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
I wish more people would start thinking this way. The longer we reject the notion of a third party being a viable option, the longer America is gonna keep going down the toilet...


RE: All this
By Spectator on 11/4/2008 3:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sandman i agree with you.

about 1yr ago i had to badger my isp about my ussage caps.

here in uk we have 8mb over tele line. im sat on exchange and get 750k sec. and yes thier is +£1 per gig charge. and the net provider only update your usage at midnight each day.

Does not take long at 750k sec to burn through your 30gig/month limit.

Anyways in the end they sent me software i can run to monitor my usage realtime. which is better than some providers i guess.

But anyways i agree with you. they should by law be forced to provide said speed 24/7 per month for a fixed fee. If you want to pay for something you dont use then thats fine. We pay for 8mb 24/7 net access for a monthy fee and we WILL use it.

carry'ing the logic forward. your car insurance could say. you crashed your car after spending xx hours driving. thats above the average time drivers spend driving. IM SORRY we wont pay your insurance claim.

Where does it all end. lol


RE: All this
By heffeque on 11/4/2008 5:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... I didn't know that the UK had worse connections than the US and than Spain. There's a slightly lower speed in Spain, but no bandwidth cap. Although some things are changing. The cable company Ono is starting to update their DOCSIS to 3.0 so as to give 50/3 Mbps and 100/5 Mbps with no bandwidth cap.


RE: All this
By kontorotsui on 11/5/2008 2:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) Any limit cannot be less than the limit of your package. Ex, a 6MB package at full speed for the entire billing period.


That's like saying any road speed limit cannot be less than the speed of the light.


RE: All this
By swizeus on 11/4/2008 10:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
Hey...hey... watch out for that Rest of the world... we're here in Indonesia still suffer more. We Pay $10/month for speed just up to 384 kbps, eventhough it is unlimited already, it WILL be less at noon, when traffic is high. We pay $50/mo. for 1 mbps, of course it is CHEAP in YOUR country, but we just have $500 wage a month (that is a mid-class society already). The most important thing is we CAN'T enjoy internet TVs with those bandwidth, unless it is downscale to level you guys says unwatchable and totally sucks

Anyway, do you know Indonesia ? Get your Google Earth ready then....


RE: All this
By omnicronx on 11/5/2008 1:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I don't agree with what you are saying, but the U.S is not the rest of the world. In europe people are mostly in close proximity to one another, and its not nearly as hard or expensive to lay down infrastructure. When looking at large countries like Russia for example, only 23% the population are internet users, of course there are many reasons for this, but the vast distances between cities is probably one of them. Canada has invested billions upon billions of dollars in infrastructure, just to bring high speed internet to the majority of its large cities, and this is with a 10th of the population, I can't imagine how complex and expensive american systems must be.
(And Canada only has a grand total of around 10-15 major urban areas across the country to deal with, I can't even count how many there are in the US)


RE: All this
By Guttersnipe on 11/6/2008 12:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
bingo, and a conflict of interest.

they are pushing their new u-verse at&t tv over ip /dvr service
they'd rather you use that.

just like comcast.

well, we'll see if obama is good for something. lets see if he lets them get away with this.


kick the abusers
By MadMan007 on 11/4/2008 8:47:16 AM , Rating: 5
One question I've never seen asked or answered is why don't they just kick the abusers off the network? The TOS even pre-cap would allow that. Going by their own statements it's only a tiny group that are causing the problem so therefore getting rid of them would make the network better for everyone and terminating abusers service is the same thing they're doing with caps anyway. I suppose it would be the same thing either way but imposing caps on all users is just a more blatent way to irritate people.

The answer is clear, the abusers are not the reason for imposing a cap on ALL users...the cap is just a preemptive move to continue delaying upgrades to the network. I'd still like to see them answer the question.




RE: kick the abusers
By Pneumothorax on 11/4/2008 8:56:54 AM , Rating: 5
That's only part of the answer, the real answer is MONEY. I'm sure these Telco's/Cable operators are just salivating the day when they can turn your internet connection to an abusive Cell phone type of service. Pay $39.99 per month and get 20gb free and then $1 per gig afterwards or update to the "Family Plan" for only $79.99 per month get 50gb free and pay only $.50 extra gig. Then there's the $250 per month unlimited plan and the "pay-as-you" prepaid internet. Of course most of these plans require a two year commitment.


RE: kick the abusers
By marvdmartian on 11/4/2008 9:44:22 AM , Rating: 3
That's not so different from when I lived in Guam, in the late 90's, and hooked up to the internet. 28K service (later upgraded to 56K), and I paid $70 a month for 100 hours of online service. Every hour over that was $1/Hr! Luckily, once they did some upgrades to their equipment, we ended up with a much more reasonable 56K unlimited service, which saved me a ton of money!

I have no problem, if I'm a heavy downloader, of paying for my bandwidth, but ONLY IF THE CHARGE PER UNIT IS REASONABLE (hopefully the isp's heard that!). The isp's love to talk about how 5% of the users use 50% of the bandwidth (or whatever), but they never mention whether all the bandwidth is being used, or if they'd just rather complain and get more money.......AFTER they've spent the past 5+ years trying to get everyone switched over to high speed internet! Um, here's a clue....if you guys didn't upgrade your systems well enough to keep up with demand, why is it now our problem??

Oh, speaking of bandwidth, did anyone else notice that rapidshare changed their rules recently? Used to be if you had a premium (paid) membership, you could download 5GB/day, then 10GB/day. Now they're saying 50GB/month!! While that's still a buttload of data, I find it interesting that it's still 1/3 of their older limit, and 1/6 of what they recently had for a limit. I guess maybe their bandwidth bill was getting a bit out of hand, or maybe their advertisement revenue was dwindling??


RE: kick the abusers
By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
They don't kick them off because "abuser" is an arbitrary term, in actuality they have enough bandwidth that it's more profitable to do as they are.


RE: kick the abusers
By Spivonious on 11/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: kick the abusers
By soydeedo on 11/4/2008 9:37:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
For the 768Kbps connection, you'd have to max out your connection for 2.5 days to hit the cap.

What's your point? When I used to have my old school phone modem I sometimes left my connection on at full tilt for a whole week or more to download what I needed because of the bandwith limitations of that time.

768kbit users already suffer for their poor connection speeds; their use shouldn't be further impeded by such low and unreasonable caps.


RE: kick the abusers
By Regs on 11/4/2008 9:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
But why on earth would someone not spend the extra 10 dollars or so a month for the faster connection if they needed it? Who in their right mind would want to max out their connection for 7 days a week and wait when they can just upgrade? This is all assuming you're given the choice, which ATT&T has given.


RE: kick the abusers
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/4/2008 10:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
gee, I don't know, maybe because they are on a tight budget. I know its crazy to think about that with all the responsible spending going on in our country these days.


RE: kick the abusers
By Regs on 11/4/2008 3:03:41 PM , Rating: 1
So you're saying the seller has to bare the burden of his debt or tight budget?

Where do you people come from?


RE: kick the abusers
By soydeedo on 11/4/2008 10:41:11 AM , Rating: 4
Some people just can't justify the expense. I didn't have my connection maxed day in, day out way back when, but on occasion when I needed a large file I would have to resort to that. That didn't mean I thought it was worth an extra $10 a month for that one situation where I would need the bandwith.

Personally, of course, I would have upgraded if given the choice [I have the 6mbit package from ATT right now], but I'm sure there are others out there who wouldn't see it as a necessary expense. I can think of my dad as a prime example.

Really it kind of is like someone above me said where they are moving more toward a cell phone model. Someone like my dad would never pay more for extra speed because he feels like he can get by just fine with his surfing and email at 768kbit, but once they start advertising the usage limits as part of package "features" someone like my dad will finally see it as a necessity to pay more. He won't want to be stuck with a slew of overage charges for an off month.

Anywho, I'm done with this argument. Needless to say I think this 20gb limit is too low. =P


RE: kick the abusers
By jimbojimbo on 11/5/2008 10:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T provides mostly DSL and since you don't have any idea how DSL works I'll explain. DSL speeds are limited by distance. Some people want a much higher speed package but the connection limits them. People who get set up for faster speeds but are at a distance that is just letting them do so usually have connection problems so have to drop down to the next speed.


RE: kick the abusers
By MadMan007 on 11/4/2008 10:19:34 AM , Rating: 3
The difference is quite simple. Their stated reason for caps is that abusers degrade the quality of service for everyone. Charging them more money might deter some abusers and thus improve service for others but it is not a guarantee that abusers will no longer affect other users, kicking them would guarantee it. This is why their statement about improving service for everyone else is a lie...I'd really not complain as much if they just said 'There are abusers of the network who hurt the quality of service for all users, we are going to charge them more in order to make more money, unfortunately this won't solve the problem of degraded service for other users but we'll make more money this way and our bottom line is more important than service quality. Thanks.' At least that would be honest.

Their own statement says that abusers do affect other users and that is the supposed reason behind the caps so whether one is an abuser or not does not matter according to the ISPs. So by their own statement it does in fact affect me. That's what is bothersome about caps and overage charges, it does not actually address the problem of abusers for the other end users which is exactly what the supposed goal is!


RE: kick the abusers
By Starcub on 11/4/2008 9:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's a profit grab. They are seeking to increase profits without providing anything in return. ISP's pushed crap arguements to combat net neutrality too, but what politician is going to survive an attack on the net? Caps are a precondition to an end run around net neutrality. If they can kill high bandwidth content and techs by imposing caps, then they can effectively privatize content by exempting thier own services from the BW limitations they impose.

See why govt oversite and regulation are good things?


RE: kick the abusers
By MadMan007 on 11/5/2008 10:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I'm no free market all the time nut, and it looks like you agree with my assessment of the reason for caps.


The Root of the Problem
By Bateluer on 11/4/2008 8:59:13 AM , Rating: 5
Its not the abusers or the file sharers. The root of the problem today is that telcos didn't upgrade their networks the way they should have. When given grants by federal and state governments to implement fiber lines, they used the money to buy each other out. In New Jersey, telcos were contracted to provide 45MB/s connections across the state, and paid in advance with tax payer money to do it. To date, nobody in NJ has such a connection, save for a few educational campuses and they pay through the nose for it.

We have Netflix and Hulu pushing streaming video content. Microsoft and the Xbox pushing their streaming content, Sony and the PSN pushing their streaming content. The list goes on.

The demand for bandwidth isn't going to lessen and people's need for bandwidth will increase exponentially. Capping and straggling people's bandwidth only hurts the economy and prosperity of everyone.




RE: The Root of the Problem
By MadMan007 on 11/4/2008 10:05:59 AM , Rating: 5
You're absolutely right about the failure of the Telecom Act of 1996. The deregulation bargaining chip that was used was the part that the companies took part in and they did not uphold their obligations to improve infrastructure. The increase of deregulation only accelerated after 2000 when the FCC served the interests of media companies more than the interests of the general population. Even after strong opposition in every public hearing held across the country in 2007 the FCC loosened ownership rules further.

Hard stated caps rather than unclear but looser caps is just the attempt by the communication providers to further delay infrastructure upgrades in the face of obvious need.

I'm hoping for some Teddy Roosevelt style trust-busting and general corporate ass-kicking in the next few years.


RE: The Root of the Problem
By AntiM on 11/4/2008 11:50:29 AM , Rating: 4
As others have said, another problem is a lack of competition. For TV, I have TimeWarner or Satellite. For ISP, I have TimeWarner or AT&T. If I'm getting less service (bandwidth caps), why does my bill stay the same? Why do I have to pay for 100 channels when I only watch 10 of them? The cable companies and ISPs are screwing us because they can.


RE: The Root of the Problem
By Aarnando on 11/5/2008 2:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cable companies and ISPs are screwing us because they can.


The only reason they can is because you allow them. Stop subscribing to their services, and they can no longer screw you with their billing.


RE: The Root of the Problem
By Guttersnipe on 11/6/2008 12:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
yup other countries are charging ahead with large pipes for its users, and our isps are capping our already comparatively tiny bandwidth. its insult to injury. and as bandwidth gets every cheaper their complaining really is not believable.

especially in the light that they have conflicts of interest, trying to sell tv/media delivery packages.

yes even at&t is delivering tv over ip (u-verse) and dvr service. so the whole bandwidth hog nonsense is just greed. trying to squeeze more profit by going back on a promise to deliver unlimited service they sold.


Drill here, drill now, pay less!
By Indianapolis on 11/4/2008 9:40:32 AM , Rating: 4
We need to start drilling for our own internet. It doesn't make sense to have so many untapped reserves of internet.




RE: Drill here, drill now, pay less!
By Regs on 11/4/2008 9:47:44 AM , Rating: 2
That made no sense, and yeah I know what you're trying to get at.


RE: Drill here, drill now, pay less!
By Spivonious on 11/4/2008 10:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
lmao


By soydeedo on 11/4/2008 10:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
Finally, something we can agree on, spiv. =)

Though I see your lmao and raise you a rofl.


By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 12:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Can we drill for it out in cali-for-ni-ay? Hear there's still a little internet out there.


Lol, like they don't do it already
By dflynchimp on 11/4/2008 8:51:37 AM , Rating: 1
I admit, I'm a heavy bandwidth user, I stream and download alot. There's six people in my house using the internet (cousins living with us), and in the evenings fighting for bandwidth really does get ugly. But if there's one thing I've noticed about our dsl service, it's that AT&T ALREADY LIMITS YOUR BANDWIDTH.

They just don't state it out right. I can understand if with six people streaming off youtube and dloading music the internet slows considerably, but I can't also help but notice that during peak usage out connection gets throttled, A.I cut off sporadically.

I called tech support after one such outtage, and after an Indian voice on the other end named Jerry fed me several things to do to "fix" the connection, all of which I had already tried (unplugging/replugging modem, windows software, etc) the modem magically started to work again and worked flawlessly for the next week or so, before it promptly started the staccato again.

I'm no networking expert, but this stuff ain't rocket science. If I tried every possible way to get a network up and running and it doesn't work, but after a phone call things magically clear up, something's fishy.




RE: Lol, like they don't do it already
By dflynchimp on 11/4/2008 8:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
on the other hand, if AT&T offered different rates for improved and increased bandwidth I'm all for jumping on board. It's not that my household necessarily "abuses" our connection, it's that you can't help but use up 6 times more bandwidth with 6 people accessing the internet at the same time. It's a logical outcome, and if one or two of those 6 people happens to be running p2p or streaming videos then the problem is further compounded.


By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, you already have a speed cap and no matter how many people are on simultaneously that cap is still in effect.

Yes you'll inevitably use more bandwidth than with fewer users, but typically not 6X as much.


By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
1) Implement QOS on your router to regain bandwidth where it's needed most.

2) What you're describing is just as likely to be an intermittent data line connection (physical connector or cable line damage), the level 1 techs you call for support have no control over getting a line working again even if it were being manipulated.


By The0ne on 11/4/2008 10:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
No one has mentioned Time Warner RoadRunner yet so I will since it's the only service I can get here. TWC will intermittently disconnect the signal if you're using P2P for anything. It appears that when a certian number of users are connected to you then it kicks it. I'm not sure what the conditions are but as soon as I start something in P2P then wammo, I'm out and I have to unplug the modem. How's that for good measure! haha Oh, and interesting enough, if I had stuck with their 15Mbps package this doesn't happened at all. Go figure O.o


By jconan on 11/5/2008 2:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
It appears to be a conflict of interest for companies that provide media services as well as network service. Because network services eats up the media service bandwidth it would seem justifiable for networks to control the bandwidth. However it is unfair to users who pay for the bandwidth and never get to use the bandwidth to the full extent that it was meant to be used.

If the media and telecommunications services were regulated then comcast would only be able to provide media and at&t would only be able to provide telecommunication services. Since there is no conflict of interest then consumers benefit. Like in canada the telcos and cable services are one and the same. Here in the us the services are becoming to become like canada where consumers are likely to suffer.

Hopefully someone in the senate or congress hears the pleas and puts the halt to bandwidth cap silliness and regulates the industry since it's getting out of control.




By zolmaster on 11/5/2008 3:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
I live in South Africa, a meg 4 line with 3 gig cap costs $55. To buy an additional 1 gig of dota costs roughly $6 per gig.

Stop complaining :p


By jconan on 11/5/2008 6:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
In contrast to S.A. there is not that many consumers population wise that use the internet according to
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm S.A. has only 5.1 million users compared to Nigeria with 10 million. That's probably 1 of the reasons why internet is expensive over there, not enough customers and competing businesses to bring down the price of the internet. Unfortunately over here the telcos have zone jurisdiction and it that easy to switch unless the user moves to another neighborhood with a different service provider. Here if zone juridiction was deregulated i.e. where ATT customers can switch to competing telcos like Verizon there would better service and telecomm infrastructure.


By jimbojimbo on 11/5/2008 11:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
You also forget that the US is the birthplace of the internet and is supposed to be one of the leading economic powers in the world. How come several other countries in this top 10 list are getting faster and faster bandwidth and we're getting slower and more limited? We're not even keeping up, we are going backwards.


Will Cloud Computing survive ?
By greylica on 11/4/2008 8:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well, for some Software Vendors (Microsoft, Google), cloud computing is considered to be the next step. But each time we boot a thin client over the net, caps like these and traffic shape will be like the nightmare for their dreams, even with wireless networks growing faster.

Here in Brazil, I am ok with 60 Gb download per Month for a 4 Mbps connection, when exceeded, the velocity drops to 200 X 200. No more costs. The Isps provide us with a page to see the downloads done day by day.
It´s far better than the Scrocs Traffic Shape Invention, the insanity of corrupt ISPs, and better than a charge of 1$ per GB.

Cloud computing still have a chance in a capped environment, but in a Traffic shape Environment, will it survive ?

What all of you is thinking about those problems in USA ?




RE: Will Cloud Computing survive ?
By icanhascpu on 11/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Will Cloud Computing survive ?
By MadMan007 on 11/4/2008 3:55:42 PM , Rating: 3
Uhh, are you serious? So you think a lone computer with no external connection can be part of cloud computing?

btw Cloud computing is just glorified terminal computing from back in the day when real PCs were expensive. That means networking and for cloud computing the networking is the internet. 'FFS'


By icanhascpu on 11/5/2008 4:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
You do not know the differance between the Internet and the Intranet do you. Not all networks are open nor rely on the Internet as a whole to function.

Idiots rating ignorance up. Once again, go learn what cloud computing is FIRST, then rate.


Lies lies and more lies
By HrilL on 11/4/2008 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 3
This has absolutely nothing to do with the heavy users. Really the only companies with real problems would be cable ones since their lines are shared but DSL is not. And with new cable tech out and comcast switching over to it. I don't see how they can complain that these 5% of users are degrading service for others. Yet they can offer faster and faster speeds. How can they do that if they are strapped on bandwidth? The backbones of the internet still have plenty of room and there are still thousands of miles of dark fiber waiting to be turned on. The simple fact is there still isn’t enough bandwidth usage to warrant lighting them up.

The real fact is these ISP's want more money and don't want to see their other services getting dropped because users are able to get a better service over the internet. So by capping the internet they are able to stop any competition to those services in their tracks. They make up these lies about running out of bandwidth so that they are not sued for anti-competitive practices which are their true motives.

The ISP's have their own little monopolies all over our country by making deals with city councils by offering a free TV channel if they block other providers from being able to sell to their area. The lack of competition is the real problem. If the market was truly free and fair we wouldn't be having these problems in the first place. While I don’t like Government intervention as much as the next capitalist it is the only true option we have left.

What we really need is a not for profit ISP to start up and laws at the federal level that don’t allow any communities to block them or tie them up in court trying to stop them from building out a network. Fine the ISP’s for not satisfying their obligations under old acts and use that money to finance this company. The goal would be to offer everyone 100Mb/s fiber that could be expanded to 1Gb/s when needed. This would allow the internet to stay a free and open place like it is supposed to be. It would allow internet businesses to thrive and thus grow our economy and make millions of new jobs. We don’t need money grubbing companies running our lies like we currently do. We need an internet by the people for the people. There is no true or just argument against it.




RE: Lies lies and more lies
By Hafgrim on 11/4/2008 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
HrilL you hit it right on the nose.

What you describe is exactly whats happening and the true cause of this bogus cap testing. This is an obvious attack on voice over IP companys and on anything that could affect their rediculous OVERpriced price structure on all cell phone services which they want to apply to all things if they get a chance and we let them.


RE: Lies lies and more lies
By Gzus666 on 11/4/2008 4:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
For sure. I have a feeling that they will feel the brunt of the big companies that are trying to implement these services soon though. I think everyone realizes by now these bandwidth problems are fabricated. As all this streaming, cloud computing, VoIP and other services pick up, they are going to probably beat down walls to make sure it stops. I really hate the way they are doing business, but I have a feeling the fight will be fought for us.


what about comcast
By kevinkreiser on 11/4/2008 9:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
I just received this email from comcast:

Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer:

Comcast is committed to providing you with the best online experience possible.

One of the ways we do that is by managing the leading fiber optic network in the nation to ensure it is fast, safe and reliable. As part of our ongoing efforts to continuously improve the quality of our service, we are switching to a new network congestion management technique by the end of the year. It is focused on managing network congestion only when and where it may occur. It will also replace the current technique and will help ensure that all of our customers receive their fair share of network resources.

What does this mean for you? Probably nothing. We ran five market trials of this technique over the summer and found that less than one percent of customers were affected. So, the vast majority of customers will not notice any change to their Internet experience as a result of this new technique. During the times of busiest network use (which could occur at any hour, depending on your neighborhood), those very few extraordinarily heavy users – who are doing things like conducting multiple and continuous large file transfers – may experience slightly longer response times for some online activities until the period of network congestion ends.

As we transition to this new technique, we have amended our Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP") and posted it on the Comcast.net Web site. For links to the amended AUP, as well as answers to Frequently Asked Questions and more information about this new technique or our network management efforts in general, please visit our Network Management Policy page at: www.comcast.net/networkmanagement.

Thank you again for choosing Comcast as your high-speed Internet provider.




RE: what about comcast
By soydeedo on 11/4/2008 10:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like they need to update their signature there:

quote:
Thank you again for choosing Comcast as your Internet provider.

Fixed.


RE: what about comcast
By MadMan007 on 11/4/2008 11:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
I will further correct your quote correction:

quote:
Thank you for using Comcast as your Internet provider, although we know that you likely don't have a decent choice to make.


SOLUTION: Set up community wireless networks.
By ayat101 on 11/4/2008 11:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
These kind of restrictions are happening all over the world, and not in just a single country. I have no proof of conspiracies, but the end result is just the same: we will not be able to share large volumes of files, legitimate or otherwise.

I have been living in a part of the world where I have had to struggle with this for ages... and things are getting worse not better in terms of bandwidth and restrictions.

The solution is not for everyone, but it proceeds as follows:

1. Star setting up a wireless network across your neighbourhood, city, suburb, etc. Join an existing network if it is available, start connecting these mini networks. This idea had been popular before - there are some resources still available to help you proceed. At the speeds of current wireless, you will get an unlimited high speed bandwidth.

2. Set up some kind of encrypted Darknet across this wireless network, use someting like WASTE or Freenet. Start sharing files within this commuity.

3. As you set up the commuity, assign downloading tasks fron the external internet to members... or automate it with some kind of volunteer board (a user volunteers to get a file, and this is noted and posted in a database so others can concentrate on other files). This spreads the downloading from the outside internet across the community providing a bigger bandwidth from the combination.

4. For the more technically challenged set up a local wireless access point for the network so anybody can connect.

5. Set up some trusted system for sharing files on physical media - get a 1 TB hard drive through the postal system and make the files available on your local wireless. This could in a way connect local Darknets across the country or the world by transfering files in large volume.

6. ALWAYS use something like TrueCrypt whole disk encryption for your file storage, and/or mailing physical data.

7. Set up a local Darknet on your school or uni campus.

I am sure other ideas can be added. This is more work and harder to accomplish, but you will actually learn something from doing it, develop high level networking skills and create a community. You will learn about encryption and data protection... and if you use your brains, nobody will be able to spy on you or access your data without permission.

... in the END when the control freaks give up, move these darknets to the internet or start connecting them across it.




RE: SOLUTION: Set up community wireless networks.
By HrilL on 11/4/2008 7:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
While this would work great in areas with a lot of college students or tech savvy people where I live No one downloads stuff but me. I got old people all around me. This would not help me one bit.

My ISP has had fake caps for a long time in their TOS 50GB down and 10GB up a month. They don't enforce it at all. But it is still there none the less. I have COX btw. They were throttling me some until I made a call and complained and they claimed they were not and then said they'll send a tech out even though I told them there was wrong on my end and that I know they are sending reset packets just as Comcast was doing so they sent the tech out who knew absolutely nothing about how networking works and was impressed with how much I knew and he made a call and suddenly everything went away and was working like it should be. After that I've never had another problem even using over 150GBs a month. Once you’re put on the white list so to speak I guess you are good to go. And COX has a 100% monopoly in my area there is no DSL at all.


By ayat101 on 11/5/2008 1:25:27 AM , Rating: 1
All you need is a group of maybe a couple dozen people in one location and this starts to work.

The second part of it is that you connect long distance with directional antennas to other such hubs or even single people. Optimally, everyone is running one omnidirectional antenna, and one directional antenna pointing at another link in the network. This increases the area over which you have to find enough interested people. You are not limited to the 100m or so of clear line of sight for a standard wireless base station.

It helps even more if you live as I do high up on a side of a hill overlooking a large part of the city :)

Your point about having enough tech savy people is correct, but I believe that once you start looking at a whole city level (or a large suburb) as I describe above you will find such people. It does involve some leg work and talking to real people though :)


20G?
By airjrdn on 11/4/2008 9:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Comcast was bad when they imposed a 250G limit.

The post mentions a 20G limit for the 768Mbit users. Where did that figure come from? I have the 3Mbit package (because 6Mbit isn't available to me), any idea what my cap will be?

Also, is the cap for downloads only, uploads only, or combined?

Download a couple of Linux distro DVD's and you'll be over your limit. 20G is insanely low!




RE: 20G?
By The0ne on 11/4/2008 10:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
And people bashed me for stating a 10G/20G capped by Cox when I was with them. When techs called and tell you to stop because of the small cap that's a problem.

But yes, 20G is not much at all, especially for a household.


By Cerin218 on 11/4/2008 3:40:52 PM , Rating: 1
I am a computer nerd, or geek, or dude, there are many names that mean the same thing. I embrace technology and make it a part of myself just like breathing. A few people use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth so they need to be throttled? Should I have one of my legs removed because I run faster then lots of other people? Or have part of my brain removed because I think better then lots of other people? Why do I suffer because grandma can only figure out how to email while I torrent, download programs, run ftp, have a website showing cute stupid pictures of my special ed cats, and download Netflix, etc, etc. Why are the people too stupid to use the technology to its fullest capacity the standard to which my usage is measured by? I know technology, I make it my bitch. Now I have some jack ass company going "you use too much". I say you don't supply enough. The generations behind me are going to continue increase their demands on technology. So if you are going to provide it, you need to learn how to do so. When I run out if IP addresses at work, I don't get to tell my boss you've reached the limit and you cant have any more computers, I have to expand the network. Regardless of how much trouble it is to me. Yet the ISP's can say use just a little bit, or pay us a huge amount of money that we won't invest in our infrastructure, rather we will tell our shareholders that we made great profits and will be increasing your dividends, then pay top management larger bonuses for having created greater profit out of less resources. What's next? Is air going to cost me? To all of you that say "buy a business connection", bite me. If I ran a business I would buy a business connection hence the business part of the title. But I don't. I am a residence, which is why I buy residential service. The only real difference is business costs 100$ more for the same technology. Kind of like you add an extra zero to the number when something is billed as medical. I say charge all the people who waste bandwidth for idiotic things like a retarded My Space Page, or posting themselves lighting their farts on fire on YouTube, extra each month for turning the great technology that's the internet into an Idiocracy of stupidity. Charge all fairly, or charge none. Stop screwing me and let me use technology as I should not be penalized just because you can.




By nappyjim on 11/4/2008 5:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agreed with you up until you said, and I quote:

"Why do I suffer because grandma can only figure out how to email while I...have a website showing cute stupid pictures of my special ed cats"

To which you later said, and I quote:

"I say charge all the people who waste bandwidth for idiotic things like...posting themselves lighting their farts on fire on YouTube"

Pot, meet kettle.


The real problem
By blaktron on 11/4/2008 11:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone else think its a little suspicious that ISPs start changing contracts to charge for high bandwidth usage when they send out WiFi capable modem/routers that default to an unsecured network? This sounds like gouging customers plain and simple. What about the super heavy users who are willing to pay for that, but not at $1 a GB over a limit that for heavy use is a little low.




Net Neutrality
By mpjesse on 11/4/2008 11:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
To all you clowns screaming about how ISPs have this inherent right to impose caps won't think it's such a good idea 5 years from now when you have to pick and choose what you want to watch on your laptop or desktop because you're approaching your cap. I suppose if that happens you'll be forced to watch TV the old fashioned way: on your TV. I'm pretty sure that's called extortion.

This has absolutely nothing to do with network management. Not a single ISP has presented any evidence that the "top 5%" of users are using 50% of the bandwidth. Nor have they shown that these top 5% are affecting other users. It's bullcrap people! This is about 2 things:

1. Making broadband more profitable (tiered service based on bandwidth alotment)
2. Preventing the canabalization of cable TV service

First the ISPs (Comcast) tried data discrimination (i.e., bit torrent) to prevent people from watching TV. (FYI, NBC is now using bit torrent to distro HDTV downloads) When that didn't fly with the American people & the FCC, they went a simpler way: bandwidth cap.

Comcast, TWC, and AT&T are so afraid that people will drop their cable TV service that they've imposed bandwidth caps to discourage users from doing "too much" watching on the internet. Not to mention the fact that they'll also lose local advertising revenue from the 500 daily car lot commercials. Think about it. All the major telecos who have or are experimenting with bandwidth caps have cable TV service. The only teleco/cable tv company who hasn't announced anything is Verizon, but that's coming. So to all you "free market" clowns: don't say I didn't tell you so 5 years from now.




When would the cap reset?
By timmiser on 11/4/2008 1:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
starting with a 20 GB limit for 768kbps customers and topping out at 150 GB for 6 mbps lines


Is this per day or per month?




By IcePickFreak on 11/4/2008 5:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AT&T says its trial “underscores [its] commitment to bring bigger, faster and smarter broadband networks to more and more communities at affordable rates.”


Because we all know limiting something with a cap is how you make it bigger & faster.

+1 AT&T marketing team




By nappyjim on 11/4/2008 5:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
...because companies capitalize on your neccessities and make money doing it.

How is this any different from your TV company offering you that nice low teaser rate for 6 months only to double it by month 7. Only difference is, they didn't come out and specifically say that uncapped, un-throttled , internet was just a teaser.

Either deal with it, or lease some optical lines and start your own company.

Dont get me wrong, I'm pissed to as I use the net for torrents, movies, etc....but come on, you didn't see this coming, really?




By amanojaku on 11/4/2008 7:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
The inquiry isn't directly related to Internet access and bandwidth caps, but it's a good start.

quote:
"I'm certainly concerned with the increasing cable prices that consumers are facing," [FCC Chairman Kevin] Martin said. "They are getting less and being charged the same or more."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_bi_ge/ca...




Why me?
By Das Capitolin on 11/4/2008 8:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
I read the headline, and immediatly thought there might be a chance it would impact me. Well, Murphy, it turns out living in Reno isn't doing me any favors in this regard.




What the people need to do...
By UppityMatt on 11/5/2008 11:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
If i lived in Reno i would also try out a test...it would be called dropping AT&T totally, not just as my ISP but as my phone provider and cell phone provider. I would rather go to satellite internet or a cable company then ever be capped. This is a testing ground the people in Reno need to boycott the hell out of AT&T to show them this is NOT something we will deal with.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki