Follow us on Steam Follow us on FB Follow us on Twitter Subscribe on Youtube

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AT&T to try limiting monthly internet traffic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AT&T to try limiting monthly internet traffic

    AT&T to try limits on monthly Internet traffic
    By PETER SVENSSON Associated Press
    Nov. 4, 2008, 1:26PM


    NEW YORK — AT&T, the country's largest Internet service provider, is testing the idea of limiting the amount of data that subscribers can use each month.

    Dallas-based AT&T will initially apply the limits in Reno, Nev., and see about extending the practice elsewhere.

    Increasingly, Internet providers across the country are placing such limits on the amount of data users can upload and download each month, as a way to curb a small number of "bandwidth hogs" who use a lot of the network capacity. For instance, 5 percent of AT&T's subscribers take up 50 percent of the capacity, spokesman Michael Coe said today.

    But the restrictions that Internet providers are setting are tentative. And the companies differ on what limits to set and whether to charge users for going beyond the caps.

    Starting in November, AT&T will limit downloads to 20 gigabytes per month for users of their slowest DSL service, at 768 kilobits per second. The limit increases with the speed of the plan, up to 150 gigabytes per month at the 10 megabits-per-second level.

    To exceed the limits, subscribers would need to download constantly at maximum speeds for more than 42 hours, depending on the tier. In practice, use of e-mail and the Web wouldn't take a subscriber anywhere near the limit, but streaming video services like the one Netflix Inc. offers could. For example, subscribers who get downloads of 3 megabits per second have a monthly cap of 60 gigabytes, which allows for the download of about 30 DVD-quality movies.

    The limits will initially apply to new customers in the Reno area, AT&T said. Current users will be enrolled if they exceed 150 gigabytes in a month, regardless of their connection speed.

    "This is a preliminary step to find the right model to address this trend," Coe said. The company may add another market to the test before the end of the year, he said.

    Customers will be able to track their usage on an AT&T Web site. The company will also contact people who reach 80 percent of their limit. After a grace period to get subscribers acquainted with the system, those who exceed their allotment will pay $1 per gigabyte, Coe said.

    Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest Internet service provider and AT&T's competitor in Reno, last month officially began a nationwide traffic limit of 250 gigabytes per subscriber. Comcast doesn't charge people extra for going over the limit, but will cancel service after repeated warnings. Previously, it had a secret limit.

    Two other ISPs, Time Warner Cable and FairPoint Communications Inc., are planning or testing traffic limits as low as 5 gigabytes per month, which is easily exceeded by watchers of DVD-quality online video.

    Among the largest ISPs, Verizon Communications Inc. is a holdout, and has said it does not plan to limit downloads.
  • #2

    <sigh> http://www.savetheinternet.com/ </sigh>
    Mind as muscle, Body as energy, Spirit as thought.
    sigpic

    Comment

    • #3

      So charge me an extra $5-$10 a month and leave me the f*** alone.lol
      sigpic

      Comment

      • #4

        that is smart of verizon i do not see cox communications in there too woooooowhooooooo

        Comment

        • #5

          Soon Verizon will be king, FIOS to the home baby, mega bandwidth! All the other guys are scrambling to get what they can while they can.
          Mind as muscle, Body as energy, Spirit as thought.
          sigpic

          Comment

          • #6

            Speed is useless though if your latency sucks.

            I can get "Uverse" fiber optic (peeps getting 25-30MB down) where I am, but it pings 120ms to Dallas... so what's the point? I would rather have a slow quality connection as I don't do peer to peer stuff and don't really need the speed.

            Comment

            • #7

              Yeah but who the funk is "Uverse" they obviously have no peers. Verizon would have the clout to peer with the big boys and get those packets onto the backbone pronto.

              It's just good to know that data is traveling on fiber from your house thru your network segment. I agree the download speeds are kinda silly but that upload could come in handy
              Mind as muscle, Body as energy, Spirit as thought.
              sigpic

              Comment

              • #8

                "Uverse" is AT&T, so I don't think they will have any peering issues.

                Although they rate the top package at 10MB if you browse the forum there you will see guys getting incredible speeds if they have full fiber to the house. (all new contruction builds here have fiber to the house)

                Comment

                • #9

                  Really? Wow. AT&T? I can't believe they have such shitty latencies.
                  Mind as muscle, Body as energy, Spirit as thought.
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • #10

                    It's all about the routing, most people could care less about latency as they download their files online... it's only us gamers that care. I think to the ISP it's more important to route customers down open pipes than to take the shortest route.

                    Comment

                    • #11

                      Originally posted by HTM~ZenEye
                      Really? Wow. AT&T? I can't believe they have such shitty latencies.
                      If all your shit ran through the NSA, you would have a high latency too...

                      Comment

                      • #12

                        NSA, that's some bad joo joo. Maybe they need to run more wires.
                        Mind as muscle, Body as energy, Spirit as thought.
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X