Bandwidth hogs kill the performance for average users.
Can't see many logical arguments to support UNLIMITED bandwidth for the same low price as regular consumers pay.
I wonder if this would have any effect on zombie computers generating DOS attacks... I doubt it since I'd guess not that much outgoing bandwidth is involved.
AT&T sucks at everything. Just another giant corporation on my list(of quite a few these days) that has no business still being in business, but inexplicably gets to stick around because people are lazy and stupid.
I mean seriously, cable > DSL in every worthwhile measurement. The only reason anyone should even sign up for DSL is if they cannot get cable in their area. AT&T's phone service also sucks. Etc.
Anyway. Bandwidth hogs really do not 'kill' the performance for average users, because average users don't do anything that requires meaningful amounts of bandwidth anyway. And if that was really the concern, companies would add options that cost LESS money to give people less bandwidth. But what will happen is that the current price for unlimited service will become the 'base price' for 150GB, and you'll have to buy more from there. And that is complete nonsense.
If(when) my cable company implements this, I will ditch them, and just hop around until the point when all companies are on this scummy bandwagon(which probably won't be long after the first company, sadly).
AT&T sucks at everything. Just another giant corporation on my list(of quite a few these days) that has no business still being in business, but inexplicably gets to stick around because people are lazy and stupid.
I mean seriously, cable > DSL in every worthwhile measurement. The only reason anyone should even sign up for DSL is if they cannot get cable in their area. AT&T's phone service also sucks. Etc.
Anyway. Bandwidth hogs really do not 'kill' the performance for average users, because average users don't do anything that requires meaningful amounts of bandwidth anyway. And if that was really the concern, companies would add options that cost LESS money to give people less bandwidth. But what will happen is that the current price for unlimited service will become the 'base price' for 150GB, and you'll have to buy more from there. And that is complete nonsense.
If(when) my cable company implements this, I will ditch them, and just hop around until the point when all companies are on this scummy bandwagon(which probably won't be long after the first company, sadly).
We're in a very "more for less" culture now to maximize profits, with a real aversion to build new infrastructure. Which will place innovation into either creating more data compression or new infrastructure built. My guess is probably both. In the short run it's an attempt to return to the "closed off net," however as with everything as control gets reasserted someone "gets another genie out of the bottle."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I read a neat article on this, can't remember where, saying that those "heavy users" are more often pioneers in figuring out what's possible with all these resources than they are pirates, and it's not long until the regular user catches up. Before Netflix, who could use so much bandwidth? Then it's higher quality transmissions. Then it's... who knows? But if we'd been capped several years ago based on "average users," Netflix couldn't have begun as a business model. Or even further back, YouTube, image hosting, Facebook... we continue to find uses for things.
So yeah, these caps just stifle creativity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
150 GB cap is luxury compared to what we have in Canada.
Yeah. Every time I see people in America complaining about bad/slow/whatever Internet, I just kinda shake my head because up here in Canada, things are so bad as to be barbaric.
Alternatively, you know you're Canadian when you ration your bandwidth usage for the month, and you're not even doing anything extra strenuous.
It wasn't long ago that some plans here imposed as much as $120/GB for going over your cap. Honestly, I have 100GB at the moment, and cannot possibly use it all in a month. 150 is plenty for home usage. You guys in the US just don't know how good you've had it these past few years!
Honestly, I have 100GB at the moment, and cannot possibly use it all in a month.
You'd be surprised how fast you can burn through 100 GB. Especially when you're like me and enjoy things like anime and music in ways that, ahem, take up a lot of bandwidth.
Youtube is surprisingly bandwidth-intensive, I'll have you know.
You'd be surprised how fast you can burn through 100 GB. Especially when you're like me and enjoy things like anime and music in ways that, ahem, take up a lot of bandwidth.
Youtube is surprisingly bandwidth-intensive, I'll have you know.
I don't download video files, I must admit. But I do watch a lot of youtube and other streamed videos, and I still find it very hard to get through 20, daily browsing and other downloading included. It's basically only Steam that ever pushes me over that.
Playing a LOT of Starcraft2, League of Legends, watching Youtube, watching Netflix, other things. These things stack up and take a TON of bandwith (esp when sharing with 5 or 6 other networked machines.) 150 isn't enough for serious online gamers.
For a regular family it would be, but for a family with 2+ online gamers, it's nowhere near enough.
Anyway. Bandwidth hogs really do not 'kill' the performance for average users, because average users don't do anything that requires meaningful amounts of bandwidth anyway.
Oh, then I guess average users don't need to give a ☺☺☺☺ about your problems anyway. STBY. Average users stream Netflix and YouTube too... But they just dont do it for 30 hours a week.
As for AT&T cell service, the AT&T 3G sucks BECAUSE of iphones and bandwidth hogs... Even when people are at home, too many don't bother to turn on their wifi, thus sucking up 3G bandwidth from other users. AT&T is giving out free Microcell boxes (just got mine) to give people 5 bar coverage in the house (and relieve bandwidth to the network).
And if that was really the concern, companies would add options that cost LESS money to give people less bandwidth. But what will happen is that the current price for unlimited service will become the 'base price' for 150GB, and you'll have to buy more from there. And that is complete nonsense.
Price for any given rate of upload/download speed has been going down over time. It will continue to do so. And users will be capped, though probably at higher and higher capacities every year.
As some dude sits there at home, typing away on his computer, not paying a cable bill, on $30 a month for internet, watching Hulu and Youtube, downloading all the media they want through torrents, then sending it out through his slingbox to his smartphone, burning through 500 GB a month and not paying a nickel for the content he essentially gets for free, *****ing that AT&T wants to cap the UNLIMITED bandwidth he feels he is entitled to for his monthly $25... maybe complaining about the upload speed... I have to laugh.
Even me I'm not cheaping out or stealing media, but I'm getting a bargain compared to the old days: I use cable internet for about $50, paying maybe $50 dish network for 2 boxes, HD, and DVRs, and $13 for netflix & blu-ray. I could probably go a lot cheaper if I had DSL in my area, but I'm still getting 5x the entertainment value I got 5 years ago, now in 1080i or 1080p HD, at probably 60% of the price that I was paying back then for cable + internet.
There is actual cash value to every GB you download. Why should there be unlimited internet anymore than unlimited electricity? If you're using up a T1 you should pay for a T1. There's tons of competition in Internet delivery and I doubt that AT&T is setting caps unless bandwidth hogs are a problem. Please note that with widespread wifi and whatever else comes along later, people are able to share bandwidth like nobody's business. When the whole dorm is sharing a single, fast DSL or cable connection, it sucks to be the Internet provider. It's like electricity that you can share for free... Unlimited $25 a month and everybody can plug in to one room.
Consumers are spoiled. Commercial customers have had usage caps on any ultrahi speed Internet as well they should. Service should be tiered.
It was only a matter of time. Did everyone really figure they would get unlimited usage forever? People will figure out a way around it, they always do.
There is actual cash value to every GB you download. Why should there be unlimited internet anymore than unlimited electricity? If you're using up a T1 you should pay for a T1. There's tons of competition in Internet delivery and I doubt that AT&T is setting caps unless bandwidth hogs are a problem. Please note that with widespread wifi and whatever else comes along later, people are able to share bandwidth like nobody's business. When the whole dorm is sharing a single, fast DSL or cable connection, it sucks to be the Internet provider. It's like electricity that you can share for free... Unlimited $25 a month and everybody can plug in to one room.
Because unlike electricity, bandwidth is not used up. The problem is not how many GB people use. It's how many GB people are using at the same time.
If the caps were to reflect this, I would be a lot happier. i.e. something like what the do with cell phone minutes. So instead of simply capping heavy users, restrict their usage to non-peak hours once they go over the cap.
It wasn't long ago that some plans here imposed as much as $120/GB for going over your cap. Honestly, I have 100GB at the moment, and cannot possibly use it all in a month. 150 is plenty for home usage. You guys in the US just don't know how good you've had it these past few years!
150 GB is a hell of a lot, especially when I only burn about 500 MB a month on my iphone, with wifi activated most of the time. However, I never watch youtube video's, watch netflix, download things (beside small apps) on my iphone. Additionally, I don't share my iphone with anyone else. 100 GB will be eaten up quite fast when you got four internet connections in the home, so that's actually 25 GB per person, and then we're not counting downloading updates to video game counsel's, and other devices that also use internet. Even then, I have to agree that most customers probably wont' burn through 100 GB in a month, it's just larger families, and high internet users that will get the brunt of this. In America it's about 'freedom', and thus something like this will be taken quite negatively, and I have to agree, it is rather annoying, especially when I don't see a logical reason for a cap.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
150GB for online gaming? Please. You could have 5 consoles logged into WoW for 24 hours straight, gold farmer style doing nothing but 25 man raids and still only consume about 2GB per month. (This is based on IGN tests saying that raids and high traffic areas like Dalaran/Ironforge would use the most bandwidth).
Basically patches would eat you harder.
The two biggest bandwidth hogs right now seem to be streaming radio/music and youtube style steaming (netflix et). With more high def stuff comming over the wire we need better compression. It seems to range between 20-60 MB for a 6 min vid. Using 20 that's 200MB per hour 2.4GB for 12 hours of streaming movies. or 72GB for a month.
That's a lot but still under the cap. This is designed to find P2P file sharers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Because unlike electricity, bandwidth is not used up. The problem is not how many GB people use. It's how many GB people are using at the same time.
If the caps were to reflect this, I would be a lot happier. i.e. something like what the do with cell phone minutes. So instead of simply capping heavy users, restrict their usage to non-peak hours once they go over the cap.
Fair enough I guess...
Throttling bandwidth after somebody goes over, and maybe charging different bandwidth rates for different times (e.g. 0.5x the bandwidth counted against you during non-peak hours) would work for...
But really setting a pretty generous cap accomplishes most of the same thing, and I think they should just throttle bandwidth down after that, rather than start charging more.
-
But it's hard to market a complex plan like that, and you'd get so many complaints from people not understanding the plan or more importantly, getting discrepancy between what they think they're using and actually using. Ultimately, AT&T is really just trying to stop subsidizing the p2p pirates (OR maybe get the p2p pirates to pay extra for some higher tier of plan).
Easiest way to accomplish this is capping.
They had better bandwidth throttle after that, rather than charge a per GB rate, because "fee traps" based on overage is just sneaky (you know, where you go over your texting plan and pay 10 cents a text or some ridiculous sum like that) and the customers really really hate it.
Watching streams consumes bandwidth pretty quickly as well, and I do that fairly often. I watched Final Round last weekend (A big SSFIV/MvC3 tourney) and that was basically a full weekend of video being streamed. God knows how much bandwidth that consumed.
If AT&T seriously thinks this will help stop pirating, it won't do a thing at all. Pirates will always find a way around things.
Let them cap it. Let all of them cap it. Then it will open up new business for those who don't cap it.
I don't see Cox capping it any time soon. They have an internal limit but its something ridiculously high like 50gig a day or something. It's hardly a concern. This is just ATT being greedy,
I'm inclined to think that AT&T isn't concerned with pirates outside of the fact that they're hogging the company's bandwidth.
But the fact that pirates usurp a lot of bandwidth is the reason why they put the cap into place. Ironically, implementing a cap doesn't really punish pirates as much as they hope, because pirates don't have to stream to torrent whatever the hell they want.
It's also funny how AT&T put in the "grace period" for when you do go over the cap. It's just a blessing in disguise -- once you do realize you're getting charged with overage fees, it's too late to abort your contract without getting nailed with termination fees.
But the fact that pirates usurp a lot of bandwidth is the reason why they put the cap into place. Ironically, implementing a cap doesn't really punish pirates as much as they hope, because pirates don't have to stream to torrent whatever the hell they want.
It's also funny how AT&T put in the "grace period" for when you do go over the cap. It's just a blessing in disguise -- once you do realize you're getting charged with overage fees, it's too late to abort your contract without getting nailed with termination fees.
The fallacy with AT8T's method is that there is a lot of legitimate ways customers can generate high bandwidth usage. Yes yes pirates use alot of bandwidth, I'm sure I generate a ton of it when I torrent top gear episodes directly from the bbc broadcast. (Sorry, bbc america butchers it way to much to enjoy it, so F OFF)
But I also play online games, I also stream hulu and netflix, I also use steam, and I have multiple computers I download certain games too.
So let me get this straight. Your example of how a "legitimate", nonpirate can generate massive bandwidth... is you, er, pirating British TV? Plus doing games & streaming...
50 HD movies a month = 150 GB. You want to use AT&T's Internet service as a continuous Media streaming service, something that does not work as a business model for them if even 1/4 of their users were to do what you do. Why should 95% of the users subsidize your hogging all the bandwidth?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/13/atandt-will-cap-dsl-u-verse-internet-and-impose-overage-fees/
This will probably hark the end of the days of rampant illegal P2P filesharing and constant gaming.
I'm glad my family switched off AT&T just a couple of months ago now. Does anybody know how much usage you get off 150 GB?
I read that.
Most stuff burns less bandwidth, other than torrents I think. Really gonna average 50 movies a month?
But I'm really upset to see that this trend is spreading.
Can't see many logical arguments to support UNLIMITED bandwidth for the same low price as regular consumers pay.
I wonder if this would have any effect on zombie computers generating DOS attacks... I doubt it since I'd guess not that much outgoing bandwidth is involved.
I mean seriously, cable > DSL in every worthwhile measurement. The only reason anyone should even sign up for DSL is if they cannot get cable in their area. AT&T's phone service also sucks. Etc.
Anyway. Bandwidth hogs really do not 'kill' the performance for average users, because average users don't do anything that requires meaningful amounts of bandwidth anyway. And if that was really the concern, companies would add options that cost LESS money to give people less bandwidth. But what will happen is that the current price for unlimited service will become the 'base price' for 150GB, and you'll have to buy more from there. And that is complete nonsense.
If(when) my cable company implements this, I will ditch them, and just hop around until the point when all companies are on this scummy bandwagon(which probably won't be long after the first company, sadly).
We're in a very "more for less" culture now to maximize profits, with a real aversion to build new infrastructure. Which will place innovation into either creating more data compression or new infrastructure built. My guess is probably both. In the short run it's an attempt to return to the "closed off net," however as with everything as control gets reasserted someone "gets another genie out of the bottle."
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
So yeah, these caps just stifle creativity.
Yeah. Every time I see people in America complaining about bad/slow/whatever Internet, I just kinda shake my head because up here in Canada, things are so bad as to be barbaric.
Alternatively, you know you're Canadian when you ration your bandwidth usage for the month, and you're not even doing anything extra strenuous.
You'd be surprised how fast you can burn through 100 GB. Especially when you're like me and enjoy things like anime and music in ways that, ahem, take up a lot of bandwidth.
I don't download video files, I must admit. But I do watch a lot of youtube and other streamed videos, and I still find it very hard to get through 20, daily browsing and other downloading included. It's basically only Steam that ever pushes me over that.
For a regular family it would be, but for a family with 2+ online gamers, it's nowhere near enough.
As for AT&T cell service, the AT&T 3G sucks BECAUSE of iphones and bandwidth hogs... Even when people are at home, too many don't bother to turn on their wifi, thus sucking up 3G bandwidth from other users. AT&T is giving out free Microcell boxes (just got mine) to give people 5 bar coverage in the house (and relieve bandwidth to the network).
Price for any given rate of upload/download speed has been going down over time. It will continue to do so. And users will be capped, though probably at higher and higher capacities every year.
As some dude sits there at home, typing away on his computer, not paying a cable bill, on $30 a month for internet, watching Hulu and Youtube, downloading all the media they want through torrents, then sending it out through his slingbox to his smartphone, burning through 500 GB a month and not paying a nickel for the content he essentially gets for free, *****ing that AT&T wants to cap the UNLIMITED bandwidth he feels he is entitled to for his monthly $25... maybe complaining about the upload speed... I have to laugh.
Even me I'm not cheaping out or stealing media, but I'm getting a bargain compared to the old days: I use cable internet for about $50, paying maybe $50 dish network for 2 boxes, HD, and DVRs, and $13 for netflix & blu-ray. I could probably go a lot cheaper if I had DSL in my area, but I'm still getting 5x the entertainment value I got 5 years ago, now in 1080i or 1080p HD, at probably 60% of the price that I was paying back then for cable + internet.
There is actual cash value to every GB you download. Why should there be unlimited internet anymore than unlimited electricity? If you're using up a T1 you should pay for a T1. There's tons of competition in Internet delivery and I doubt that AT&T is setting caps unless bandwidth hogs are a problem. Please note that with widespread wifi and whatever else comes along later, people are able to share bandwidth like nobody's business. When the whole dorm is sharing a single, fast DSL or cable connection, it sucks to be the Internet provider. It's like electricity that you can share for free... Unlimited $25 a month and everybody can plug in to one room.
Consumers are spoiled. Commercial customers have had usage caps on any ultrahi speed Internet as well they should. Service should be tiered.
Because unlike electricity, bandwidth is not used up. The problem is not how many GB people use. It's how many GB people are using at the same time.
If the caps were to reflect this, I would be a lot happier. i.e. something like what the do with cell phone minutes. So instead of simply capping heavy users, restrict their usage to non-peak hours once they go over the cap.
150 GB is a hell of a lot, especially when I only burn about 500 MB a month on my iphone, with wifi activated most of the time. However, I never watch youtube video's, watch netflix, download things (beside small apps) on my iphone. Additionally, I don't share my iphone with anyone else. 100 GB will be eaten up quite fast when you got four internet connections in the home, so that's actually 25 GB per person, and then we're not counting downloading updates to video game counsel's, and other devices that also use internet. Even then, I have to agree that most customers probably wont' burn through 100 GB in a month, it's just larger families, and high internet users that will get the brunt of this. In America it's about 'freedom', and thus something like this will be taken quite negatively, and I have to agree, it is rather annoying, especially when I don't see a logical reason for a cap.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Basically patches would eat you harder.
The two biggest bandwidth hogs right now seem to be streaming radio/music and youtube style steaming (netflix et). With more high def stuff comming over the wire we need better compression. It seems to range between 20-60 MB for a 6 min vid. Using 20 that's 200MB per hour 2.4GB for 12 hours of streaming movies. or 72GB for a month.
That's a lot but still under the cap. This is designed to find P2P file sharers.
Throttling bandwidth after somebody goes over, and maybe charging different bandwidth rates for different times (e.g. 0.5x the bandwidth counted against you during non-peak hours) would work for...
But really setting a pretty generous cap accomplishes most of the same thing, and I think they should just throttle bandwidth down after that, rather than start charging more.
-
But it's hard to market a complex plan like that, and you'd get so many complaints from people not understanding the plan or more importantly, getting discrepancy between what they think they're using and actually using. Ultimately, AT&T is really just trying to stop subsidizing the p2p pirates (OR maybe get the p2p pirates to pay extra for some higher tier of plan).
Easiest way to accomplish this is capping.
They had better bandwidth throttle after that, rather than charge a per GB rate, because "fee traps" based on overage is just sneaky (you know, where you go over your texting plan and pay 10 cents a text or some ridiculous sum like that) and the customers really really hate it.
If AT&T seriously thinks this will help stop pirating, it won't do a thing at all. Pirates will always find a way around things.
I don't see Cox capping it any time soon. They have an internal limit but its something ridiculously high like 50gig a day or something. It's hardly a concern. This is just ATT being greedy,
But the fact that pirates usurp a lot of bandwidth is the reason why they put the cap into place. Ironically, implementing a cap doesn't really punish pirates as much as they hope, because pirates don't have to stream to torrent whatever the hell they want.
It's also funny how AT&T put in the "grace period" for when you do go over the cap. It's just a blessing in disguise -- once you do realize you're getting charged with overage fees, it's too late to abort your contract without getting nailed with termination fees.
The fallacy with AT8T's method is that there is a lot of legitimate ways customers can generate high bandwidth usage. Yes yes pirates use alot of bandwidth, I'm sure I generate a ton of it when I torrent top gear episodes directly from the bbc broadcast. (Sorry, bbc america butchers it way to much to enjoy it, so F OFF)
But I also play online games, I also stream hulu and netflix, I also use steam, and I have multiple computers I download certain games too.
50 HD movies a month = 150 GB. You want to use AT&T's Internet service as a continuous Media streaming service, something that does not work as a business model for them if even 1/4 of their users were to do what you do. Why should 95% of the users subsidize your hogging all the bandwidth?