Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T to cap broadband data use at home
- Thread starter Zeos
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, that's the reason I'm not getting the 3G version. Sure it might come in handy, but I'd probably end up paying $25 for about 250MB worth of data.
Even as a Slingbox/Netflix/AppleTV user, I'll never hit the 250 GB cap, but I'm worried that this is the nose of the camel. It wouldn't surprise me to soon receive an offer to switch to a choice of cheaper plans with more limited caps, followed progressively by rate increases disproportionately magnified for the higher-cap plans. And all this will be marketed as "customer choice"--fitting if the customer is Hobson.
They sell Internet, TV, and phone under the UVerse name. We have intenret-only U-verse after ditching their poor phone and television services (at least in our neighborhood).
When you surpass the "cap", you pay $10 for another 50GB. If Netflix is ~2GB/hr, then that's another 25hrs of streaming.
Tell me how this is a bad thing to pay for usage above a certain level? Yes, it impacts those who hit those levels, but it seems to me that charging the heavy users for their usage is better than an overall rate increase to everyone. (and if it wasn't obvious, a "heavy user" is one who hits that 250GB level. I realize everyone tends to think of themselves as normal, but as an objective operating definition I think equating it with the "cap" works well enough)
Who said it needed to be stopped? When you hit the "cap" on AT&T they don't throttle you if I read the article right; they just charge for usage in excess of the cap. So feel free to keep on watching all you want.
Someone else quoted Netflix as about 2GB per hour. I don't know if that's solid or not, but let's say it is. With 250GB base limit, that's 125hrs of pure Netflix usage; four hours a day, 7 days a week. Get additional 50GB blocks for $10. I agree, there's likely a bunch of people who will be impacted by that.
If you shared a house with a two other people and one of them tended to use four times the water than anyone else uses, is splitting the $300/mo water bill evenly something you'd support? Or would you support a usage-based division?
Network capacity buildout is of course different, since it's more of a capacity issue; but building extra capacity costs money and takes resources. Do you spread that cost out across all subscribers evenly or do you allocate it based on some criteria such as the subscribed data rate or the actual usage?
That's my say on it, I have no illusions of convincing those who hold a different opinion, so I'm probably not going to put any more time into this debate with potential exception of clarification of my point.
Ok, so I'm at 200 GB for six months, then at 251 GB for three months and they are going to tag me with an overage fee? Tell me how that is equitable. I'm telling you, to AT&T the customer is a nuisance that must be controlled.
Uh oh, AT&T is going to get us to start calling each other data abusers like they did when they stopped their unlimited iphone and ipad data plans: "you're one of those 2% people that use over 2gb per month? You're an abuser, man!" 
Rollover would be a cool thing for them to implement. However in the example you mention, I'd hope you'd be smart enough to keep up with your usage after that first time you went over. Easy enough to check once every week or ten days and see if you're tracking within your allowance; same as anyone who has a cell phone family plan and kids does.
I'm not intending to defend AT&T in any way shape or form. I just don't see the sky crashing down on us by implementing some degree of differentiated pricing based on usage. Of course that's easy for me to say, as I"m not a top tier data user.
I just don't see the sky crashing down on us by implementing some degree of differentiated pricing based on usage. Of course that's easy for me to say, as I"m not a top tier data user.
This sort of thing does not appear catastrophic one limitation at a time, but they do enjoy picking away at a level that is just tolerable enough so that complacent customers just go along. AT&T sees us all as unintelligent minions to be managed and trained.
Last edited:
Perhaps. And in most areas it's pretty close to a duopoly market from the consumer perspective, so there is some limitation to jumping from one provider to another.
Yet in contrast, how many remember the days of metered dialup access and how expensive that could be?
A price hike when bandwidth costs are going down seems somewhat unfair. I guess it makes some sense when data usage is spiking with all the streaming going on though. I would hope that they would at least upgrade their bandwidth limit now, I'm stuck with 24mbps compared to the 50 Comcast offers in my area.
Good luck. I don't know too many areas where you have the choice between the two. I guess it's an agreement where AT&T will not venture into Verizon's area and vice versa.
With the rise of Netflix, other instant viewing options, and downloading of movies--lot of people are starting to downgrade cable service or cancel it all together. This is really the service providers' way of getting around the FCC's recent Net Neutrality guidelines. By providing unlimited usage, they are competing with themselves and losing revenue on the cable TV side; hence, why they are giving "discounts" for customers who have uVerse TV service bundles. The problem is that there isn't that much competition in cable/internet markets, where I live it's a choice between Time Warner Cable or AT&T which is in essence an oligopoly. This is the nature of natural monopolies due to infrastructure, but the FCC and the government definitely need to regulate and keep an eye on the market. Currently, Republicans in congress are working to undo Net Neutrality guidelines imposed by the FCC in December so it's only a matter of time before you might not even be able to access Netflix or other sites that interfere with their ability to maximize profits(in addition to having limited usage).
Last edited:
I thought this was a rumor - now it's official:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/technology/att_broadband_caps/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/technology/att_broadband_caps/index.htm
I actually wrote a letter to them back when they first announced but never got a response back. Not that I should be surprised or anything.
Anyway, the letter pretty much lays out the biggest concerns with caps and AT&T's implementation of them. I just hope that shareholders don't force TWC (my only other choice) to adopt them too to keep from missing out on an opportunity for a 2% increase in profit or whatever.
Anyway, the letter pretty much lays out the biggest concerns with caps and AT&T's implementation of them. I just hope that shareholders don't force TWC (my only other choice) to adopt them too to keep from missing out on an opportunity for a 2% increase in profit or whatever.
I actually wrote a letter to them back when they first announced but never got a response back. Not that I should be surprised or anything.
Anyway, the letter pretty much lays out the biggest concerns with caps and AT&T's implementation of them. I just hope that shareholders don't force TWC (my only other choice) to adopt them too to keep from missing out on an opportunity for a 2% increase in profit or whatever.
Well, obviously, there's money to be made. Especially when you have competing services (Hulu vs. uVerse TV).
I would switch providers if mine try to do that. I don't want to have a capped internet plan since
1) My dad has an online business.
2) Same with my mom.
3) I make programs on the computer and like listening to music on Pandora while doing so.
4) My brother constantly watches YouTube.
So I think we would reach the limit and that would suck.
1) My dad has an online business.
2) Same with my mom.
3) I make programs on the computer and like listening to music on Pandora while doing so.
4) My brother constantly watches YouTube.
So I think we would reach the limit and that would suck.
"Broadband Reports is confirming that AT&T (NYSE: T) plans will top out at 150 gigabytes of monthly usage for DSL customers and a 250 gigabytes on U-Verse."
So it appears to be confirmed that AT&T is going to start capping monthly broadband use at home. Maybe I can just hang out at Starbucks or McDonalds with my iPad to avoid hitting the cap at home. Gotta love AT&T.
If you have Cox Cable, stick to them then. We have (so far) no caps.
250GB is easily consumed using bittorent I was downloading and later seeding a 27GB (approx) HD video MP4 file and between down and uploading/seeding I spent over 96GB in one day; that equals about 2.88TB in one month thank babyJesus I have Verizon FiOS 25/25 package...
Here in NZ telecom used to have an unlimited data plan a couple of years ago but they pulled the plug on it because of pirates taking advantage of it. Those damn pirates ruin it for the rest of us
Yup, I have FIOS and so far no real complaints. However I am waiting for Verizon to do the same.
I'd guess that this is not a knee jerk reaction to high usage, but part of a carefully planned strategy to future proof their revenue. Technology is changing and "cloud computing" is becoming more and more apart of the average users daily activities. Unlimited data plans do not secure future revenue as bandwidth usage goes up, but caps do.
It's no different than the Dept of Transportation putting in a toll road and saying we're only going to charge tolls for X number of years to pay for the initial construction. However, when X number of years pass the tolls never go away. They never intended to remove the tolls and in the end they've established a pay for usage system that helps fund other road projects.
Like many have said At&t is not the first to implement caps. They are just preparing for the consistent rise in usage that is coming by planning a way to profit from it.
It's no different than the Dept of Transportation putting in a toll road and saying we're only going to charge tolls for X number of years to pay for the initial construction. However, when X number of years pass the tolls never go away. They never intended to remove the tolls and in the end they've established a pay for usage system that helps fund other road projects.
Like many have said At&t is not the first to implement caps. They are just preparing for the consistent rise in usage that is coming by planning a way to profit from it.