View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2011, 08:39 PM
Dillon Pyron
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How will new AT&T DSL/Uverse Caps Affect Free Wi-Fi?

Thus spake Justin :

>Justin wrote on [Sun, 8 May 2011 01:53:46 +0000 (UTC)]:
>> Ryan P. wrote on [Sat, 07 May 2011 15:57:41 -0500]:
>>> On 5/5/2011 10:05 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> Ryan P. wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500]:
>>>>> On 5/4/2011 2:09 PM, SMS wrote:
>>>>>> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>>>>> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>>>> I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>>>>> other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>>>> It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>>>>>> up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>>>>>> downloading of huge video files.
>>>>> If they can stick to it, 250GB is not really a cap... Except for the
>>>>> people constantly running torrents, I don't see who else that would effect.
>>>> Do we really need to go through this again?
>>>> 4 hours of HD streaming per day is 248GB.
>>>> Stay at home spouse, kids, multiple streams running at once and you
>>>> have hit your cap with ONLY video.
>>> Now let's get back to reality, and look at people's actually data
>>> speeds. If you've got a typical 10Mb connection, you're only capable of
>>> downloading 4.7GB per hour, assuming you get 100% of your rated speed.
>>> That's 53 hours of transfer time before you could even theoretically
>>> reach 250GB.
>>> Let's also look at what any of these streaming services are actually
>>> streaming... They are NOT streaming you 248GB of data for 4 hours of movie.
>>> Unless you think that the average person has an ISP offering them
>>> 507,904Mb service?
>>> The theoretical speed of Verizon's FIOS is 50Mb. The highest speed
>>> U-Verse offers is 24Mb.
>>> So how exactly is anybody supposed to use up 248GB in 4 hours?

>> did you miss the per day portion of that sentence?

>As in, 4GB per day for 30 days

As in a heavy (well, not real "heavy" these days) user of Netflix?
Yeah, I can see someone tapping out.

Oddly, though, TW, AT&T, Comcast, blah blah blah all want us to use
"their" services to stream this video, etc.

I can kind of understand why AT&T is doing this. While their network
"could" be capable of handling more traffic, their design is based
more on a POTS model, which gets them into some real trouble if
everybody decides to watch the Victoria's Secrets ad (cleverly
masquarading as a TV show) on one set while the women folk are
watching something else on another. Add Junior trying to look at the
Vicky's online catalog at the same time and the network goes directly
to hell.

AT&T has some good engineers being driven by bad management. I was at
SBC (Southwestern Bell, aka "the Baby Bell that ate America") as a
security consultant and got to watch the start of the trainwreck,
including some good engineers jumping off. Well, at least they got
the security part right. For 2001, that is.

- dillon I am not invalid

bin Laden thought of himself as a holy man. I guess
SEALs can't spell because they made him a holey man.

Reply With Quote