Live data from Hacker News

AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

engadget.com

1–10 of 68 posts

Re: AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

#2
I feel like this is less about ability to handle the 2% who go over the bandwidth limit and more a means to fight piracy. I would assume the 2% who go over 150/250gb/month are people sharing large amounts of media (sure people like me download tons of legal soundboard recordings from bands, etc, but probably not the majority of that 2%). By capping the bandwidth, they can effectively cripple the ability for some to share large amounts of movies/shows/music.

Re: AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

#3
post #2

I feel like this is less about ability to handle the 2% who go over the bandwidth limit and more a means to fight piracy. I would assume the 2% who go over 150/250gb/month are people sharing large amounts of media (sure people like me download tons of legal soundboard recordings from bands, etc, but probably not the majority of that 2%). By capping the bandwidth, they can effectively cripple the ability for some to s…

I think it's more about making things more difficult for services like Netflix and Hulu as well as extracting some extra revenue from their top users who don't have any other choice for internet service.

Re: AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

#4
post #3
post #2

I feel like this is less about ability to handle the 2% who go over the bandwidth limit and more a means to fight piracy. I would assume the 2% who go over 150/250gb/month are people sharing large amounts of media (sure people like me download tons of legal soundboard recordings from bands, etc, but probably not the majority of that 2%). By capping the bandwidth, they can effectively cripple the ability for some to s…

I think it's more about making things more difficult for services like Netflix and Hulu as well as extracting some extra revenue from their top users who don't have any other choice for internet service.

Bingo, especially since AT&T TV (which is all over IP and therefore is just as likely to 'clog the tubes' -- actually even more so since it has better QoS) is exempt.

They are going to go kicking and screaming into the age of being a dumb pipe.

Re: AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

#5
I think instead of being able to advertise "up to" speeds, ISPs should have to advertise the overall average speed you can use in a month taking into account usage caps.

150GB/month works out to .47MBit/sec sustained throughput. If AT&T had to advertise that rate instead of 6Mbit for DSL lines, they'd think twice about caps.

UVerse is even worse--~1Mbit/sec instead of 24.

Re: AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

#6
post #5

I think instead of being able to advertise "up to" speeds, ISPs should have to advertise the overall average speed you can use in a month taking into account usage caps. 150GB/month works out to .47MBit/sec sustained throughput. If AT&T had to advertise that rate instead of 6Mbit for DSL lines, they'd think twice about caps. UVerse is even worse--~1Mbit/sec instead of 24.

That said, burst speed is what matters if you are streaming or doing something else that is similar.

The typical user has no need for sustained output unless they are torrenting things, being used as a supernode for skype, ect.

I do like the idea though.

Re: AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

#9
It's amazing how much has been given to ATT & Verizon to build out new fiber networks (which they still haven't finished) and now when people start using them to their potential we will be hit with overages, awesome.

It won't get any better until the cities/localities remove exclusive territory rights for companies that provide phone and cable.

Re: AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees

#10
This actually sounds pretty reasonable.

Now I'm wondering if they'll continue being reasonable with a clear commitment to a specific speed, or - at the very least - a decent and reliable average.

If so, they'll be in a position to run marketing campaigns where they start assaulting those godawful "up to" claims by demonstrating what their competitors actually average.

Alternately, this really is about offering less for more. I suspect we'll know one way or the other within six months.

Post reply on HN