Browse by topic

News

Fees for heavy Internet use "inevitable", says AT&T

14 June 2008 18:34 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 33 comments

AT&T representative Michael Coe has said the company believes it is "inevitable" that heavy Internet users will eventually have to pay some sort of surcharge for the extra bandwidth demand placed on the network.

The ISP along with other providers have been seeing a huge surge in traffic for its DSL services, which can be attributed to a small group of users. Coe added that only 5 percent of customers are currently accounting for 46 percent of overall bandwidth used per month. These users may need to be charged extra.

Although DSL is switch-based unlike cable Internet access Coe says the highly disproportionate use is still affecting other users.

The new stance is similar to other ISPs, such as Rogers in Canada and Comcast in the States which has said it is considering using a 250GB softcap and charging overage fees for users who cross that bandwidth cap.

Critics complain however, that the caps would unfairly punish users who use tons of bandwidth legitimately to, for example, watch movies through Hulu or Netflix, download movies from iTunes or play online multiplayer gaming. The critics do have a point, not everyone is a BitTorrent user.

Permalink to this article | Topic: Online video

Nokia N96 to come with BBC iPlayer app (8 September 2008)

FCC set to punish Comcast for breaking net neutrality laws (27 July 2008)

FCC Chairman wants penalties imposed on Comcast (12 July 2008)

BBC iPlayer 2.0 beta now available (27 June 2008)

iTunes hits 5 billion sold milestone (19 June 2008)

Comcast increases Premium and Premium Plus upload speeds (14 June 2008)

Time Warner Cable metered internet trial starts this week (3 June 2008)

Comcast invests in P2P streaming startup (20 May 2008)

LG and Samsung want mobile DTV (14 May 2008)

Amazon Unbox to go HD on TiVo (12 May 2008)

Comcast considers official limits on downloads (7 May 2008)

Sezmi to work with ISPs and broadcasters to compete with cable and satellite TV (5 May 2008)

Comcast wants a P2P "Bill of Rights" (16 April 2008)

66% don't care about mobile music, reveals study (13 April 2008)

« Previous news article
Sony preparing 'break apart' Wii-like controller?

Next news article »
Nintendo sues Nyko over Nunchuk

Post your comment

Discuss this article!	There are more user comments available, read them here
iluvendo (AfterDawn Addict) 15 June 2008 4:32
God help us when streaming HD VOD comes. At 25 Gb a movie, and a couple of movies each week, are our pocket books gonna get slaughtered !! If it wasnt for bad luck, Id have no luck! "The flimsier the product,the higher the price" Ferengi 82nd rule of aquisition [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 15 June 2008 12:17
They don't get it you sale a super fast plan cheap its going to be abused, you need to sale bandwidth at about 2$ every 50KBPS down stream and other 5 for the account. so 9 for 100KBPS and 55 for 1000KBPS Take it a further step and make it so the connection is quartered once you hit bandwidth limits 5GB a month per 50KBPS should be reasonable so a almost 60$ 1000KBPS account would get about 1TB of data "limitations". For 70-90 a month you can get a pro service that has no data limits and is almost 3 times faster than the normal service,plan setups is the key here not draconian schemes. [ + quote]
ld55 (Newbie) 15 June 2008 17:11
*Originally posted by JRude:* It's about $$$! NOT Piracy or ''bandwidth hawgs''...if there's an opportunity to make a buck,you can BET business will pounce on it. With all the content to be provided online, now & future, ya don't think they (ISP's) would miss an opportunity do ya?! It's a way to charge EVERYBODY for the cash cow they think they have. Wont work anyways, FCC will jump in, That or someone will sue the companies. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 15 June 2008 17:36
*Quote:* *Originally posted by JRude:* It's about $$$! NOT Piracy or ''bandwidth hawgs''...if there's an opportunity to make a buck,you can BET business will pounce on it. With all the content to be provided online, now & future, ya don't think they (ISP's) would miss an opportunity do ya?! It's a way to charge EVERYBODY for the cash cow they think they have. Wont work anyways, FCC will jump in, That or someone will sue the companies. they have not jumped in on install tokens and I doubt they will for this until it gets ridiculous... [ + quote]
SProdigy (Member) 15 June 2008 20:44
*Quote:* *Originally posted by JRude:* It's about $$$! NOT Piracy or ''bandwidth hawgs''...if there's an opportunity to make a buck,you can BET business will pounce on it. With all the content to be provided online, now & future, ya don't think they (ISP's) would miss an opportunity do ya?! It's a way to charge EVERYBODY for the cash cow they think they have. Wont work anyways, FCC will jump in, That or someone will sue the companies. Or hopefully something like FIOS or WiiMax is available to help break up these monopolies. As was the case with cell phone providers charging long distance, roaming, etc. you now see where most of those charges ended up with good competition. I would really hate for it to go this way, because there's only 2 broadband ISP choices here, and I have to have a landline in order to get DSL, so it's still a monopoly. [ + quote]
JRude (Junior Member) 15 June 2008 23:11
It doesn't matter how many ISP's are in your area. The ISP's have their own agenda, and an association both above and under the table to carry out their interests. Until they are regulated like a UTILITY it will only get worse. Look at the ''triple play'' ploy. If you don't think they collude, I have a bridge I want to sell you... It's NOT just market conditions causing the mess on the internet. It's maximizing shareholder profits at the users expense. ISP's don't own the 'net, but they own the access to it. We just foot their bill and provide the $$$. Soon only media content, email and social networks will remain. I don't think ''social networks'' brings in that much dough...they are next in the line of fire. High BW and volume useage. ;- ) [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 15 June 2008 23:18
*Originally posted by JRude:* It doesn't matter how many ISP's are in your area. The ISP's have their own agenda, and an association both above and under the table to carry out their interests. Until they are regulated like a UTILITY it will only get worse. Look at the ''triple play'' ploy. If you don't think they collude, I have a bridge I want to sell you... It's NOT just market conditions causing the mess on the internet. It's maximizing shareholder profits at the users expense. ISP's don't own the 'net, but they own the access to it. We just foot their bill and provide the $$$. Soon only media content, email and social networks will remain. I don't think ''social networks'' brings in that much dough...they are next in the line of fire. High BW and volume useage. ;- ) Not really I had alot of "fun" using local 4 or 5 dailup providers once upon a time, like with cable TV there should be company's that proived the "service" to the end user through a service distributor, basically like dailup use to be you have a center that that sells the bandwidth to the service vendors unfortunately this way to manage data is not capitalic because the vendor cannot monopolize the service but the consuemr gets the best out of it because of competition.... [ + quote]
Blackjax (Member) 16 June 2008 2:12
Well it's the isp's that created this mess with "unlimited" access and now they want everyone else to pay the price. The net based video and music services aren't going to slow and if they do it will be becasue the isp have killed it off. How do you think the media conglomerates will react........ three guesses the first two don't count and here's the third..... Piracy. Welcome to the new age of the internet! [ + quote]
mspurloc (Member) 16 June 2008 10:06
As usual, the reception for this kind of monopolistic fascism breaks down along these lines: 1. The technologically ignorant who are happy with their expensive, slow Internet connections because they don't know any better, don't use the Internet for anything but e-mail and porn, or they work for a large corporation and have a selfish interest. 2. The rest of us. Gonna start downloading movies from Netflix, huh? Yeah....might want to find out what charges AT&T is gonna lay on top of that for you. Moron says "what?" [ + quote]
lynchGOP (Newbie) 16 June 2008 13:31
After thinking long and hard and FAIRLY about this "Cap", I can honestly say that YEAH.........charge those heavy users up the ass for their massive BW consumption. I mean, those are the putzy people just downloading movies simply for the sake of downloading and not even watching what they just jacked. Kind of like kleptomaniacs; they steal just to steal...........not even wanting the stuff. Wasteful downloaders are the same and no better. 250GB is MORE THAN ENOUGH for just about every home user there is. I d/l heavily and don't EVER cross the 20 GB in a month. Only now have I considered getting Simpsons episodes 1-18 at 50 GB. I could and would only hope that peeps not whine about this as it is 'fair' and if everyone could put themselves in the position of a company owner, what would YOU do? MIND YOU PEOPLE.......All those complaining about this 250 GB 'Cap' just to complain........You're not even part of the 5% and therefore will truly never go over the 250 GB. IF AND WHEN you do.................well then............wait 'til next month to download the rest of the files you want to steal. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16 June 2008 13:34
lynchGOP (Newbie) 16 June 2008 13:36
*Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* They don't get it you sale a super fast plan cheap its going to be abused, you need to sale bandwidth at about 2$ every 50KBPS down stream and other 5 for the account. so 9 for 100KBPS and 55 for 1000KBPS Take it a further step and make it so the connection is quartered once you hit bandwidth limits 5GB a month per 50KBPS should be reasonable so a almost 60$ 1000KBPS account would get about 1TB of data "limitations". For 70-90 a month you can get a pro service that has no data limits and is almost 3 times faster than the normal service,plan setups is the key here not draconian schemes. I'd like to know where this fictional "pro service" is. I know you're not talking T1s. 350.00 per month at best. DSL, Cable modem, Satellite.............what 'pro service' are you talkin' about? 70-90 bucks a month sounds like you're referring to the DSL/Cable Modem "Static IP" charge which is only that price because of the static IP. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16 June 2008 13:37
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 16 June 2008 13:39
*Originally posted by lynchGOP:* After thinking long and hard and FAIRLY about this "Cap", I can honestly say that YEAH.........charge those heavy users up the ass for their massive BW consumption. I mean, those are the putzy people just downloading movies simply for the sake of downloading and not even watching what they just jacked. Kind of like kleptomaniacs; they steal just to steal...........not even wanting the stuff. Wasteful downloaders are the same and no better. 250GB is MORE THAN ENOUGH for just about every home user there is. I d/l heavily and don't EVER cross the 20 GB in a month. Only now have I considered getting Simpsons episodes 1-18 at 50 GB. I could and would only hope that peeps not whine about this as it is 'fair' and if everyone could put themselves in the position of a company owner, what would YOU do? MIND YOU PEOPLE.......All those complaining about this 250 GB 'Cap' just to complain........You're not even part of the 5% and therefore will truly never go over the 250 GB. IF AND WHEN you do.................well then............wait 'til next month to download the rest of the files you want to steal. Funny I am paying 150 a month for DSL and IPTV and phone I watch only 6 channels and generally have the TV off because I prefer to download and watch all the shows I watch, I can do 20-100GB in a week if the speeds are good. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 16 June 2008 13:40
lynchGOP cable and FIOS can hit 1000KBPS noob..... its simple most users need a cheap under 20$ 200(give or take 100KBPS) service and they wont miss anything if they hit a 5-15GB cap halving their speeds, for the 20-40 range you get more speed and higher caps, 50-99 they should just back off the caps because people are paying a premium. DSL and FIOS as far as I know can limit speeds to accounts/modems this enables the service to sell different levels of plans and thats where the ISPs need to go, offer cheaper plans below 50 that offer a good balance of limits and speeds then above 50 try and remove the limtis and raise the speeds, It can be done and its better than secretive caps and metered rates.... [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16 June 2008 13:48
mspurloc (Member) 16 June 2008 18:49
*Quote:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* They don't get it you sale a super fast plan cheap its going to be abused, you need to sale bandwidth at about 2$ every 50KBPS down stream and other 5 for the account. so 9 for 100KBPS and 55 for 1000KBPS Take it a further step and make it so the connection is quartered once you hit bandwidth limits 5GB a month per 50KBPS should be reasonable so a almost 60$ 1000KBPS account would get about 1TB of data "limitations". For 70-90 a month you can get a pro service that has no data limits and is almost 3 times faster than the normal service,plan setups is the key here not draconian schemes. I'd like to know where this fictional "pro service" is. I know you're not talking T1s. 350.00 per month at best. DSL, Cable modem, Satellite.............what 'pro service' are you talkin' about? 70-90 bucks a month sounds like you're referring to the DSL/Cable Modem "Static IP" charge which is only that price because of the static IP. I bet you're right. That's what I meant by people not getting it. They're thinking in cable company terms and language, which slants it in their favor. The truth is we're already not getting what we pay for. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 16 June 2008 19:34
mspurloc Not really the way current service and infrastructure is setup there is not enough bandwidth to give everyone a super fast plan with no limits. A good middle ground is to tackle the problem reasonably be starting with cheap better than dailup plans at dailup prices you then move to cap that their cheap plans meant for lite net use at under 25$ and under 400KBPS caps would be simple halving or quartering of the speeds set to 5-15GB a month. The next range is for normal net users at about 30-40 a month speeds would be faster than 300KBPS and have caps of 15-30GB a month, premium plans would be 50+ start at about 200-400KBPS with no caps and double the speed every 10$ or so 60$ is 400-800 70$ is 400-1600 . The point with this is to charge competitive rates for a REAL unlimited service and make the limited services cheap so that thos that do not download will have something to get online with, with metered rates ideling online can hash GBs of band with they can charge you for, the only way meter rates would work is if they would halve prices as much as 80% start plans with a 20GB cap and charge 50 cents a GB and even they they have to much room to over charge you over. The cheap super fast net services will become a thing of the past in some places because like satlitle internet they do not have the infrastructure to meet the demand and the end result is a costly craptactuler service. [ + quote]
llongtheD (Member) 16 June 2008 20:43
"Although DSL is switch-based unlike cable Internet access Coe says the highly disproportionate use is still affecting other users." So they offer high speeds and unlimited use, for a fee, and now are bit??ing? I guess in a perfect world everyone would pay them the fee's and not use their internet. It seems fairly simple, if you don't have the bandwidth, don't sell it. I wish I could sell an unlimited service that I didn't have, then charge extra when a customer tried to use it. [ + quote]
llongtheD (Member) 16 June 2008 20:44
*Originally posted by llongtheD:* "Although DSL is switch-based unlike cable Internet access Coe says the highly disproportionate use is still affecting other users." So they offer high speeds and unlimited use, for a fee, and now are bit??ing? I guess in a perfect world everyone would pay them the fee's and not use their internet. It seems fairly simple, if you don't have the bandwidth, don't sell it. I wish I could sell an unlimited service that I didn't have, then charge extra when a customer tried to use it TOO much. [ + quote]
llongtheD (Member) 16 June 2008 20:47
apologize, screwed up my edit to my original post, and made a double post. [ + quote]
DXR88 (Member) 16 June 2008 22:47
People that use home Based Servers,like me are getting Screwed. this is bull crap and nonsense, if need be i will breakout my Star Tracker satellite and steal my internet. These people are fools and idiots, there cheap asses who refuse to lay new lines, to replace the ones that were there longer than there company existed. Company's only interested in milking Every last dime from the American people And the government doesn't give a dame as long as they get there share. [ + quote]
jwk27603 (Newbie) 19 June 2008 2:27
Anybody who is supporting this with a little "it's only fair" speech is either naive or a cable rep. Don't tell me you know that heavy users are all stealing movies. You don't know anything of the sort. How about this instead - there is an FCC plan to use radio for broadband. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_hi_te/free_broadband [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19 June 2008 3:07
mspurloc (Member) 19 June 2008 11:40
*Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* mspurloc Not really the way current service and infrastructure is setup there is not enough bandwidth to give everyone a super fast plan with no limits. The cheap super fast net services will become a thing of the past in some places because like satlitle internet they do not have the infrastructure to meet the demand and the end result is a costly craptactuler service. There are too many suppositions in this that only serve the ISP cause. 1. There are no real limits to bandwidth except corporate greed. Korea and several other countries have two to four times better service and infrastructure than we do. 2. Their "we lack infrastructure" argument is just beyond lame. If you don't have it, build it! 3. Besides being stupid, it's dishonest. There are thousands of bundles of dark fiber out there. "Keep supply low and prices high." They're gouging. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 19 June 2008 11:57
*Originally posted by mspurloc:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* mspurloc Not really the way current service and infrastructure is setup there is not enough bandwidth to give everyone a super fast plan with no limits. The cheap super fast net services will become a thing of the past in some places because like satlitle internet they do not have the infrastructure to meet the demand and the end result is a costly craptactuler service. There are too many suppositions in this that only serve the ISP cause. 1. There are no real limits to bandwidth except corporate greed. Korea and several other countries have two to four times better service and infrastructure than we do. 2. Their "we lack infrastructure" argument is just beyond lame. If you don't have it, build it! 3. Besides being stupid, it's dishonest. There are thousands of bundles of dark fiber out there. "Keep supply low and prices high." They're gouging. head desk You do realize that Asia has a quarter or less of the surface area to pipe lines in, there is a logical reason why most of the Asian countries flogged using speed and serviceable areas in less than 5 years it dose not have anything to do with government or business you have a small area with huge population centers making it ahell of alot easier to do. In the US not only to do you have large areas of nothing but sparace population centers, no one company has the money to put the pipes in to provide the services that are not there or under serviced right now, while they have screwed up the truth of the matter is they can not afford to keep giving away supper fast connections on the cheap. There are MANY issues in the US net infrastructure one of the key things coming up is a balance of bandwidth, the cheaper you make the super high speed the more people will be on it and the quicker it will be used up. I am not calling for metered rates or heavy caps or what not just anything over 1000KBPS needs to be over 50 a month, anything under 300KBPS needs be under 20 a month, you can't build infrastructure on the money you have for maintanace and what you run your business on. They are greedy but only a bit more than sheeple and almost as dumb, but the fact remains we don't want them to move to something like Satilite DSL caps there needs to be a balance, and price plans to speeds will do it. For all the console/game fanboys out their. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles...Console-Rundown Oh god I can't stop laughing!!! --- And for the format nazi's I bring you HHD DVVD BVD's!! [ + quote]
glassd (Junior Member) 19 June 2008 13:30
The Type SCSC 48 strand optic trunk cable that we use cost @ $11.00 per foot. Each splice box cost around $1,200.00 . Of course each house, block, road, etc does not need 48 strands. The cost of outfitting one small town is crazy. Some one has to pay for this. As ZippyDSM stated, a wireless future may be the way to go. I live in a town with @ 220 homes. If everyone in my town decided that they wanted a fiber optic connection and a service provider decided to lay fiber optic cable and equipment in our town; for material alone just to get to each property, it would cost $387,000. That would have a ROI of over 7 years. You figure in the Lease of land lines, labor, equipment for burial, connection to your house, modems etc... The Return On Investment would be 20+ years. Banks are looking for a RIO of 3 to 5 years. What kind of monthly bill would you be willing to pay to make this feasible? In a Large City where hundreds of people live in 1 building and multiple buildings per block, Fiber is feasible to install. For us who live in rural areas, we are out of luck. It may be that if larger cities convert to fiber, it will lift the load on copper land lines. Nothing is for free. Does not mater who foots the initial bill, the users and possibly non users through Taxes if the government pays for it. [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 23 June 2008 14:34
Zippy you were quite reasonable on you last post. I would like unlimited bandwidth for free just like I would not mind a money tree. As long as they are resonable and fair that would be OK by me. I do not expect to get either anymore than a 250 g / month cap. These scum bags throw out big numbers not to panic the public. I doubt if we see 100 G cap, they will try to push a 50 g cap. That is enough for heavey surfing fat email and a touch of heavy down loading. If you want more you will have to pay more. If they are more generous than that you can ALL flame me for at least a month! I would count myself lucky! [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 23 June 2008 15:33
*Originally posted by Mez:* Zippy you were quite reasonable on you last post. I would like unlimited bandwidth for free just like I would not mind a money tree. As long as they are resonable and fair that would be OK by me. I do not expect to get either anymore than a 250 g / month cap. These scum bags throw out big numbers not to panic the public. I doubt if we see 100 G cap, they will try to push a 50 g cap. That is enough for heavey surfing fat email and a touch of heavy down loading. If you want more you will have to pay more. If they are more generous than that you can ALL flame me for at least a month! I would count myself lucky! It all goes to the situation as a whole, paying under 30 for under 300KBPS with odd halving caps is not to far fechted, the point of this is to replace dailup yet not overload the ISP, moderate usage would double or triple the the rates and caps for under 50/60, Unlimited plans at high speeds above that. of course they will try everything in the world before anything like this is implemented. [ + quote]
mspurloc (Member) 17 July 2008 17:57
*Originally posted by llongtheD:* "Although DSL is switch-based unlike cable Internet access Coe says the highly disproportionate use is still affecting other users." So they offer high speeds and unlimited use, for a fee, and now are bit??ing? I guess in a perfect world everyone would pay them the fee's and not use their internet. It seems fairly simple, if you don't have the bandwidth, don't sell it. I wish I could sell an unlimited service that I didn't have, then charge extra when a customer tried to use it. AMEN!!! If it isn't unlimited, don't sell it that way. If you can't deliver high-speed, don't call it that. If you can't deliver, period, get out of the business and make way for someone who can. This is a case of ISPs not wanting to do their jobs and not wanting to deliver the product they sold us. There is dark fiber out there and they are gouging, claiming the bandwidth's locked up. The only reason it is, is that they are sitting on it, too lazy and greedy to open it up. They gorge on our cash and sit around while the rest of the world is enjoying high speed, low cost Internet service. How many times have these guys LIED to us? How many times have companies like Comcast bribed their way out of an investigation? (You can quibble about terminology, but paying disinterested people off of the street to take up seats so the public wouldn't have a voice at a public hearing is a from of bribery.) I'm sorry. It's over. It's time to rattle their cages. [ + quote]