How will new AT&T DSL/Uverse Caps Affect Free Wi-Fi?

AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
customers that they announced a few months ago:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm

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.

SMS wrote on [Wed, 04 May 2011 12:09:28 -0700]:
> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>
> 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.

802.11b is still plenty fast enough to transfer video, however you get 10 people
using it and it's going to be crawling.

Traffic shaping by the few businesses that offer free wifi to customers
is an extra expense and headache. These systems are usually setup
to run themselves with the occasional unplug/plug back in routine as the
only debugging method.

On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:09:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>customers that they announced a few months ago:
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>
>I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>other entities that offer free wi-fi.

I think you meant to say decreasing, not increasing.

>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.

No need to do traffic shaping as a separate step. Get a few people
actively using a wireless hotspot and traffic shaping happens
automatically, if by traffic shaping you mean performance that drags
down to nothing.

--
Paul Miner

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4dc1a468$0$22125
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>
> 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.
>

802.11b is 11Mbps. Hardly throttling the pinholes sold as DSl broadband.

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in
news:slrnis399g.271.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net:

> These systems are usually setup
> to run themselves with the occasional unplug/plug back in routine as the
> only debugging method.
>
>

When I implemented the 12Mbps down/3Mbps up cable internet for a local
pizza shop, I added the smallest available UPS to the equipment list which
has resulted in spotless service with no plug/unplug nonsense, usually
caused by power glitches in restaurants.

Works great....You can run a server at your table and noone else notices!

On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:09:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>customers that they announced a few months ago:
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>
>I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>

I don't think the caps apply to business accounts. I have a few
customers who have AT&T DSL and none have told me they have received a
cap notice.

And from the story you referenced:

"But AT&T isn't alone in instituting restrictions on residential
broadband usage."

"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:i9v3s6dgl6l2s11es6vleb3098fsakcab3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:09:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>
>>http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>
>>I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>
>
> I don't think the caps apply to business accounts. I have a few
> customers who have AT&T DSL and none have told me they have received a
> cap notice.
>
> And from the story you referenced:
>
> "But AT&T isn't alone in instituting restrictions on residential
> broadband usage."

One step at a time.

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:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>
> 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.

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:
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>
>> 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.

On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500, "Ryan P."
<rdeletepaque@wi.rr.comm> wrote:

>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:
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>
>> 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.

Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.

--
Paul Miner

On 5/5/2011 7:54 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
> 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:
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>
>> 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.

Both AT&T and Comcast don't want unlimited data being used to get around
subscribing to digital HDTV service and buying movies. You could get to
250GB downloading a lot of HD video. Netflix dreams of getting away from
shipping DVDs by piggybacking on unlimited broadband data. Video on
demand was not supposed to involve the USPS and a two day lag time.

On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:20:34 -0500, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500, "Ryan P."
><rdeletepaque@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>
>>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:
>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
>that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
>at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.

Not trying to excuse AT&T, but it's still better than the 60GB cap
they were talking about when they instituted their cap test markets.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 05:16:18 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:20:34 -0500, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
>>that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
>>at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.
>
>Not trying to excuse AT&T, but it's still better than the 60GB cap
>they were talking about when they instituted their cap test markets.

Most definitely!

--
Paul Miner

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:
>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>
>>> 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?

On 5/5/2011 10:20 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500, "Ryan P."
> <rdeletepaque@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
> that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
> at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.
>

I was referring to U-Verse, which will apparently be 250GB vs their
DSL which will indeed be 150GB.

I know data can get used up in a hurry.. Justin mentioned streaming HD
video from some online provider. There is only so much bandwidth
available per second to us, though.

On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:03:05 -0500, "Ryan P."
<rdeletepaque@wi.rr.comm> wrote:

> I know data can get used up in a hurry.. Justin mentioned streaming HD
>video from some online provider. There is only so much bandwidth
>available per second to us, though.

I saw that. I thought he was talking about heavy usage for 4 hours per
day, while you seemed to interpret it as 4 hours of heavy usage per
month. I'm sure he'll follow up, though, if he hasn't already.

--
Paul Miner

On 5/7/2011 4:43 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:03:05 -0500, "Ryan P."
> <rdeletepaque@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>
>> I know data can get used up in a hurry.. Justin mentioned streaming HD
>> video from some online provider. There is only so much bandwidth
>> available per second to us, though.
>
> I saw that. I thought he was talking about heavy usage for 4 hours per
> day, while you seemed to interpret it as 4 hours of heavy usage per
> month. I'm sure he'll follow up, though, if he hasn't already.

Good point.. I didn't think of it that way.

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:
>>>>
>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> 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?

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:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> 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

Thus spake SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> :

>AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>customers that they announced a few months ago:
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>
>I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>other entities that offer free wi-fi.

From the standpoint of being capped? It seems that, from the offers
I've received from AT&T for my business, that I can get uncapped
service "For a Few Dollars More". And I'm sure that as the bandwidth
you buy goes up say a couple of OC12 connections?) the happier they'll
be to let you run free.

>
>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.

As someone else pointed out, the network will go to a crawl long
before you slap any video on it. At around 15 users juet the overhead
will send the network to a crawl and at maybe 10 or 11 doing any kind
of activity not related to streaming, etc you'll see your network on
its knees.
--

- 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.

Thus spake "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> :

>
>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>news:i9v3s6dgl6l2s11es6vleb3098fsakcab3@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:09:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>>customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>
>>>http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>
>>>I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>>other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think the caps apply to business accounts. I have a few
>> customers who have AT&T DSL and none have told me they have received a
>> cap notice.
>>
>> And from the story you referenced:
>>
>> "But AT&T isn't alone in instituting restrictions on residential
>> broadband usage."
>
>One step at a time.
>

Domino theory
Slipper slope
Camel's nose

Anyone else have some?
--

- 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.

Thus spake Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> :

>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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

In article <2uols6t5feh4kbmb9t135o1ep85ac56vmg@4ax.com>, Dillon Pyron
says...


> 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.

My experience in Ohio was that Ohio Bell/Ameritech/SBC/at&t did have
quite competent engineers... the people at ASI that I dealt with were
all great. Management, however, is run by a bunch of criminals.


--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2uols6t5feh4kbmb9t135o1ep85ac56vmg@4ax.com...
..>
> 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.
>

Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.

Carl

crkeehn wrote on [Thu, 12 May 2011 05:35:38 -0400]:
>
>
> Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
> records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
> don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
> their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.

Knowing AT&T, what's to say that even if they do have a working bandwidth meter
that they wouldn't tack on usage 3 weeks later anyway. Apparently
their smartphone data usage was overestimated as well anyway.

On 5/12/2011 5:35 AM, crkeehn wrote:
> "Dillon Pyron"<invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2uols6t5feh4kbmb9t135o1ep85ac56vmg@4ax.com...
> .>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
> records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
> don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
> their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.
>
> Carl
>
>

Is their some reason why you have not changed your service provider?
I've used Bell Atlantic Mobile ---> Verizon Wireless for about the last
fifteen years. I don't recall being anywhere that had no cellular
service. I accept that there probably are areas without service but I
have yet to encounter one!

If you have a friend who has Verizon Wireless, ask him to help you test
the service in your area. Test at your home, where you work, the route
from home to work, and any other locations where you feel that you MUST
have coverage. If the results are unsatisfactory, you might
want to test AT&T's coverage in the critical areas.

One other thing you might want to check is whether the service is
"native" or "roaming".

Also note that coverage may be classified as "roaming"; e.g. your phone
works but there is an extra charge for the service. Your phone should
tell you when you are "roaming" but you may not notice until you get
your bill.

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ia2dnWnawec5pFHQnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> On 5/12/2011 5:35 AM, crkeehn wrote:
>> "Dillon Pyron"<invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:2uols6t5feh4kbmb9t135o1ep85ac56vmg@4ax.com...
>> .>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
>> records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
>> don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
>> their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>
> Is their some reason why you have not changed your service provider?
> I've used Bell Atlantic Mobile ---> Verizon Wireless for about the last
> fifteen years. I don't recall being anywhere that had no cellular
> service. I accept that there probably are areas without service but I
> have yet to encounter one!
>
> If you have a friend who has Verizon Wireless, ask him to help you test
> the service in your area. Test at your home, where you work, the route
> from home to work, and any other locations where you feel that you MUST
> have coverage. If the results are unsatisfactory, you might
> want to test AT&T's coverage in the critical areas.
>
> One other thing you might want to check is whether the service is "native"
> or "roaming".
>
> Also note that coverage may be classified as "roaming"; e.g. your phone
> works but there is an extra charge for the service. Your phone should
> tell you when you are "roaming" but you may not notice until you get your
> bill.

I'm commenting on ATT DSL service. I also go back to BAM with my wireless
service and continue to have Verizon Wireless. Unfortunately, I would have
to move to Durham to have Verizon phone/FIOS. In Raleigh we're in ATT
country for our phone service.

On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:03:05 -0500, Ryan P. wrote:

> On 5/5/2011 10:20 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500, "Ryan P."
>> <rdeletepaque@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>>
>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
>> that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
>> at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.
>>
>
> I was referring to U-Verse, which will apparently be 250GB vs their
> DSL which will indeed be 150GB.
>
> I know data can get used up in a hurry.. Justin mentioned streaming HD
> video from some online provider. There is only so much bandwidth
> available per second to us, though.

Mmm ... just a quick, rough, matchbook calculation. DSL at 768 Kb/s.
That's, let's say, 80 KB/s or 4800 KB/min, i.e., 5 MB/min, or 300 MB/hour.
With 24 hours in a day, that's 7200 MB/day, or 7.2 GB/day.

Now with 30 days to the month, I get 216 GB/month, *if* I'm downloading
full-tilt, non-stop, 24 hrs per day.

If I cut that back by 50% to account for eating and sleeping time,
I'm well under the 150 GB monthly limit.

Alternatively, if I recognize that my 768 Kb/s DSL line is generally
netting me only 50 KB/s, even non-stop at 24 hours/day for 30 days
uses me up only 144 GB.

So for Basic DSL customers, I think, this 150 GB cap is a non-issue.

Disagree, of course, if you please :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

i activated internet on my mobile, but its not working properly is there is some problem in my setting