Re: AT&T to limit unlimited data plans to 5GB a month?

"4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fdf0d46-4f4b-4761-b56b-11c8a502fb3b@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Rumor at link
> AT&T to limit unlimited data plans to 5GB a month?
>
> http://www.intomobile.com/2008/01/11...comment-137311


How do they get _Unlimited_ confused with 5GB per month ?

If It's 5GB a month then say so. Unlimited means Unlimited, not some number
of GB. Christ, I see AT&T is now playing catch up with Verizon.

The contract should read you break the contract you pay us the etf of 175.00
And if we break it we pay you the 175.00

That would stop a lot of this shit.

How is this 5gb data cap going to affect the iPhone? The iPhone uses a lot
of data and most things you do on the iPhone uses data (WI-FI or the ATT
network.) I have an 8525 on the account as well and I use the Cellular Video
and MobiTv alot and also use a lot of data on the 8525.

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6c8ij.7181$lo5.5087@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...
> "4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fdf0d46-4f4b-4761-b56b-11c8a502fb3b@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> Rumor at link
>> AT&T to limit unlimited data plans to 5GB a month?
>>
>> http://www.intomobile.com/2008/01/11...comment-137311
>
>
> How do they get _Unlimited_ confused with 5GB per month ?
>
> If It's 5GB a month then say so. Unlimited means Unlimited, not some
> number of GB. Christ, I see AT&T is now playing catch up with Verizon.
>
> The contract should read you break the contract you pay us the etf of
> 175.00 And if we break it we pay you the 175.00
>
> That would stop a lot of this shit.

In article <2dfd3$47892bed$944e0832$12563@STARBAND.NET>,
"Viper" <user@user.net> wrote:

> How is this 5gb data cap going to affect the iPhone? The iPhone uses a lot
> of data and most things you do on the iPhone uses data (WI-FI or the ATT
> network.) I have an 8525 on the account as well and I use the Cellular Video
> and MobiTv alot and also use a lot of data on the 8525.
>
Data from Wifi is not data from phone. I use far more WiFi on mine than
ATT voice/data network.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:07:12 -0500, "Viper" <user@user.net> wrote in
<2dfd3$47892bed$944e0832$12563@STARBAND.NET>:

>How is this 5gb data cap going to affect the iPhone? The iPhone uses a lot
>of data and most things you do on the iPhone uses data (WI-FI or the ATT
>network.) I have an 8525 on the account as well and I use the Cellular Video
>and MobiTv alot and also use a lot of data on the 8525.

1. 5 GB is about 75 hours of continuous transfer at the upper end of the
EGPRS(EDGE) speed range, about 2.5 hours per day. That's a lot of data
usage!

2. How much cellular data do you actually use? Check your bills.

3. It's just a RUMOR.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:05:37 -0800, "Kevin Weaver"
<kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<6c8ij.7181$lo5.5087@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> :

>"4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9fdf0d46-4f4b-4761-b56b-11c8a502fb3b@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> Rumor at link
>> AT&T to limit unlimited data plans to 5GB a month?
>>
>> http://www.intomobile.com/2008/01/11...comment-137311
>
>How do they get _Unlimited_ confused with 5GB per month ?

If the RUMOR is true, then it's a SOFT cap, with no bad consequences if
you exceed it from time to time.

>If It's 5GB a month then say so. Unlimited means Unlimited, not some number
>of GB. Christ, I see AT&T is now playing catch up with Verizon.

It's a RUMOR. Regardless, I'd welcome steps to prevent filesharers and
those running servers from abusing the network.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> It's a RUMOR. Regardless, I'd welcome steps to prevent filesharers and
> those running servers from abusing the network.

Considering the high cost to run a real sever behind a Cingular phone,
I'm sure they would have a different data rate allowance.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:22:44 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
<8ufij.87679$YL5.26819@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> :

>John Navas wrote:
>> It's a RUMOR. Regardless, I'd welcome steps to prevent filesharers and
>> those running servers from abusing the network.
>
>Considering the high cost to run a real sever behind a Cingular phone,
>I'm sure they would have a different data rate allowance.

What high cost?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:22:44 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
> <8ufij.87679$YL5.26819@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> :
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> It's a RUMOR. Regardless, I'd welcome steps to prevent filesharers and
>>> those running servers from abusing the network.
>> Considering the high cost to run a real sever behind a Cingular phone,
>> I'm sure they would have a different data rate allowance.
>
> What high cost?

As I recall, its like a $500 set up fee. I don't recall the monthly
charges off hand, but its all on AT&T's website.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:23:59 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
<j0jij.35821$JD.25212@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:22:44 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
>> <8ufij.87679$YL5.26819@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> :
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> It's a RUMOR. Regardless, I'd welcome steps to prevent filesharers and
>>>> those running servers from abusing the network.
>>> Considering the high cost to run a real sever behind a Cingular phone,
>>> I'm sure they would have a different data rate allowance.
>>
>> What high cost?
>
>As I recall, its like a $500 set up fee. I don't recall the monthly
>charges off hand, but its all on AT&T's website.

URL?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> URL?

Some hack put this page together, you might find it here.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:32:58 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
<umDij.63224$eY.57303@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >:

>John Navas wrote:
>> URL?
>
>Some hack put this page together, you might find it here.
>
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

Nope. Try again.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:32:58 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
> <umDij.63224$eY.57303@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> URL?
>> Some hack put this page together, you might find it here.
>>
>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ
>
> Nope. Try again.

Gee...maybe that hack isn't that smart after all. The rates
are plainly listed on their website.

Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fdf0d46-4f4b-4761-b56b-11c8a502fb3b@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> Rumor at link
>> AT&T to limit unlimited data plans to 5GB a month?
>>
>> http://www.intomobile.com/2008/01/11...comment-137311
>>
>
>
> How do they get _Unlimited_ confused with 5GB per month ?
>
> If It's 5GB a month then say so. Unlimited means Unlimited, not some
> number of GB. Christ, I see AT&T is now playing catch up with Verizon.

It's like the "all you can eat" buffets putting limits on how much of
certain items you can eat. These places quickly experience a drop-off in
business by the customers that were eating a lot of the expensive items.

> The contract should read you break the contract you pay us the etf of
> 175.00 And if we break it we pay you the 175.00

I agree. It's really not enough that they have to let you out the
contract without an ETF, because you've spent a lot of money on
equipment to use their service.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:04:43 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
in <rRDij.14174$6%.918@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:32:58 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
>> <umDij.63224$eY.57303@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> URL?
>>> Some hack put this page together, you might find it here.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ
>>
>> Nope. Try again.
>
>Gee...maybe that hack isn't that smart after all. The rates
>are plainly listed on their website.

I didn't think so, but thanks for the confirmation.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> I didn't think so, but thanks for the confirmation.

Good, you found the reference to the $500 set up fee.

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:04:43 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> in <rRDij.14174$6%.918@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:32:58 GMT, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in
>>> <umDij.63224$eY.57303@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> URL?
>>>> Some hack put this page together, you might find it here.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ
>>> Nope. Try again.
>> Gee...maybe that hack isn't that smart after all. The rates
>> are plainly listed on their website.
>
> I didn't think so, but thanks for the confirmation.

http://tinyurl.com/38kt8m

Scroll down to Pricing Structure and you'll see the $500
set up fee. Now, you learned something you didn't know.

Bottom line is you can't tether your phone to a computer and have
a web server running such that internet visitors at large can view
yoour web pages.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:25:06 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
in <3ZTij.7509$se5.4372@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/38kt8m

I won't use URL redirection.

>Scroll down to Pricing Structure and you'll see the $500
>set up fee. Now, you learned something you didn't know.
>
>Bottom line is you can't tether your phone to a computer and have
>a web server running such that internet visitors at large can view
>yoour web pages.

I never said you could.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:vc4oo31hec5vv76nvuirrn7pghimmne5i4@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:25:06 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> in <3ZTij.7509$se5.4372@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/38kt8m
>
> I won't use URL redirection.


Afraid to look, Johnny? Have you been proven wrong again?

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:13:29 -0600, CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote in
<Xns9A25C38F7ACA0isheforreal@216.196.97.136>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:vc4oo31hec5vv76nvuirrn7pghimmne5i4@4ax.com :
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:25:06 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>> in <3ZTij.7509$se5.4372@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/38kt8m
>>
>> I won't use URL redirection.
>
>Afraid to look, Johnny? Have you been proven wrong again?

Wrong on both counts. And since I have no more time here for childish
taunts, you'll have to rant on without me.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:t97oo3h8m9mmckp2gljbinsne2nfe6p5o1@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:13:29 -0600, CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote in
> <Xns9A25C38F7ACA0isheforreal@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:vc4oo31hec5vv76nvuirrn7pghimmne5i4@4ax.co m:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:25:06 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
>>> in <3ZTij.7509$se5.4372@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/38kt8m
>>>
>>> I won't use URL redirection.
>>
>>Afraid to look, Johnny? Have you been proven wrong again?
>
> Wrong on both counts. And since I have no more time here for childish
> taunts, you'll have to rant on without me.
>

How do you know if you are wrong if you didn't look?

I think he did and is afraid to admit it, because he was proven wrong.

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:25:06 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote
> in <3ZTij.7509$se5.4372@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/38kt8m
>
> I won't use URL redirection.

You don't seem to have a problem using Tiny Url in your own
posts, Johnny boy.

http://www.wireless.att.com/business...addressing.jsp

To obviate any other lame excuses, other than claiming my below quote is
fabricated (in which case everyone will take you for a fool):

Pricing Structure One-Time Setup Charge Monthly Service Charge
Private IPs - dynamically assigned No charge No charge
Public IPs - dynamically assigned No charge No charge
Public IPs with mobile terminated data APN No charge No charge
Static Public IPs within a range - 28 block* $500 $84 per account
Static Public IPs within a range - 60 block* $500 $180 per account
Static Public IPs within a range - 124 block* $500 $372 per account
Static Public IPs within a range - 252 block* $500 $756 per account
Static Public IPs within a range - 508 block* $500 $1524 per account
Static Public IPs within a range - 1020 block* 500 $3060 per account
Dynamic Public IPs within a range* No charge No charge
Customer - provided public IPs* None None
Custom APN setup $500 None

>> Bottom line is you can't tether your phone to a computer and have
>> a web server running such that internet visitors at large can view
>> yoour web pages.
>
> I never said you could.

I never said you said you couldn't.

On 1/14/08 7:52 PM, in article vc4oo31hec5vv76nvuirrn7pghimmne5i4@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>
> I won't use URL redirection.
>
Just curious. Why not?!?

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:17 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in
<C3B2A6D5.42275%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>:

>On 1/14/08 7:52 PM, in article vc4oo31hec5vv76nvuirrn7pghimmne5i4@4ax.com,
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I won't use URL redirection.
>>
>Just curious. Why not?!?

Because it can be used to exploit browser vulnerabilities.
The preview form should be used instead.
I want to know where I'm going. I always check a URL before clicking.
I see no reason to take needless risks, especially given the source.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

I just happened to drop by and saw this thread. I do believe this is
beyond the "Rumor" stage, although it is not "official" yet.

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/0...bye-unlimited/

Notice the pretty screenshots...

On 2008-01-16, GomJabbar <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I just happened to drop by and saw this thread. I do believe this is
> beyond the "Rumor" stage, although it is not "official" yet.
>
> http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/0...bye-unlimited/
>
> Notice the pretty screenshots...

That's neat. It seems to say that if you want an unlimited plan
you should get it before the 20th, while if you don't mind the 5 GB
thing you can get free AT&T WiFi service included at the same price
by waiting until after the 20th.

I personally like the "exceed 5 GB and we may let you out of your
contract without an ETF" policy better than Verizon's "exceed 5 GB
and we'll drop your speed so low for the rest of the month that the
service is useless" policy.

Dennis Ferguson

At 16 Jan 2008 01:21:34 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >> I won't use URL redirection.
> >>
> >Just curious. Why not?!?
>
> Because it can be used to exploit browser vulnerabilities.
> The preview form should be used instead.
> I want to know where I'm going. I always check a URL before clicking.
> I see no reason to take needless risks, especially given the source.


Easy solution- always check suspect URLs with your mobile phone...

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 1/14/08 7:52 PM, in article vc4oo31hec5vv76nvuirrn7pghimmne5i4@4ax.com,
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I won't use URL redirection.
> >
> Just curious. Why not?!?

To John's credit, because following a url redirection such as
tinyurl's and such is an invitation to attack on the worst end, or
being tubgirl'd on the more annoying end.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:52:59 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fmjvsu$m3f$2@aioe.org>:

>At 16 Jan 2008 01:21:34 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >> I won't use URL redirection.
>> >>
>> >Just curious. Why not?!?
>>
>> Because it can be used to exploit browser vulnerabilities.
>> The preview form should be used instead.
>> I want to know where I'm going. I always check a URL before clicking.
>> I see no reason to take needless risks, especially given the source.
>
>Easy solution- always check suspect URLs with your mobile phone...

Too much hassle. I can check with tools on my PC, but that's still too
much hassle. There's no good reason for me to put up with any hassle.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ap1ro3ha1a2dr0nvrp8fscv00ikgudr65t@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:52:59 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fmjvsu$m3f$2@aioe.org>:
>
>>At 16 Jan 2008 01:21:34 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> >> I won't use URL redirection.
>>> >>
>>> >Just curious. Why not?!?
>>>
>>> Because it can be used to exploit browser vulnerabilities.
>>> The preview form should be used instead.
>>> I want to know where I'm going. I always check a URL before clicking.
>>> I see no reason to take needless risks, especially given the source.
>>
>>Easy solution- always check suspect URLs with your mobile phone...
>
> Too much hassle. I can check with tools on my PC, but that's still too
> much hassle. There's no good reason for me to put up with any hassle.
>

So your goal is to simply provide it (hassle)?

John Navas wrote:
> I want to know where I'm going.

[snicker]