AT&T wants you to read more

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by grumpy3b

Until my selling my home recently, while I live in what is called a small town in the US, about 25k people, we at least can have up to 7.1/768 service and they could sell some people up to 12Mbps service but won't due to the very real physical limitations you outline.

I've been very lucky with my broadband ISP. I live in a rural unincorporated area, and the nearest "town" where my ISP's office is located is only slightly less rural and has a population of less than 1,000. When I first got cable internet 8 years ago the top offered speed was 3 mb/s. Later, they changed that to 5 mb/s for the same price, then to 8 mb/s. Then they started offering higher priced speeds of 16 mb/s and 25 mb/s. I went up to 25 mb/s for a year or two, but then decided to drop back down to 8 mb/s to save money-- and a few days after I dropped back to 8 mb/s, they did another free upgrade so that that tier now gets 12 mb/s-- the top speed offered is now 60 mb/s. I've never had my transfer speed drop below the rated capacity I was paying for-- when I paid for 25 mb/s, I always had 25 mb/s. A while back, the provider (Charter) claimed that they were going to implement a bandwidth cap of 100 GB a month, but I don't think they have ever enforced it.

Myself, I firmly believe that if I pay for a 25 mb/s connection, then I should be allowed to, if I so wished, download at 25 mb/s 24 hours a day, every day, or around 1.7 TB a week. I don't do anything at least an order of magnitude close to that-- but when I had a dial-up modem, I did have it downloading 24/7, only disconnecting when there was a dropped carrier (with individual connections lasting for weeks.)

[CWatkinsNash]

Here is what ATT is doing in my neighborhood, with a little of my own conjecture thrown in.
Fact: ATT added to the fiber network.
Fact: They expanded U-Verse (their fiber services) into my neighborhood and started selling it months after they started sending cards in the mail touting its features.
Fact: They sent out (contracted third-party) sales teams to sign up new users and convert existing DSL users to fiber. We signed up. The U-Verse internet package we signed up for was about $30/mo, 12MB/s. (We're paying a few dollars more than that for 3MB/s now on DSL.)
Fact: A few days later, two days before the scheduled install, they called and said they had to reschedule the install for the end of the month (which was three weeks later)but no date was given.
Fact: We never got an install date. The only people that got an install were those who called back a couple of times to ask why they hadn't been contacted with an install date. Those of us who were too annoyed by the situation to make the first move still don't have U-Verse, and we still haven't heard anything else from U-Verse.

Conjecture: ATT oversold their brand new upgrades right out of the gate. Perhaps they wanted to keep a certain number of people on copper and the numbers didn't work out after the sales force came through. Perhaps they stretched their install techs too thin and knew they couldn't get to everyone. Who knows?

All I know is we still have 3MB/s DSL, and honestly I don't care much. With the new caps, my DSL speed is almost self-regulating. It's enough for what I do, and surprisingly it's also enough to get really good quality from Netflix, and I only do that a couple hours a week (if that). My roommate watches videos and listens to podcasts, but it's mostly lower-bitrate stuff, and he doesn't do it often. His Hulu habits have decreased as their ads increased.

One thing I have to say, though, is that while some people I know (IRL) scoff at my speed, my DSL has been rock-solid. I've been back in Nashville since Feb 2010, and there has only been one internet outage in that time, and it lasted about 2-3 hours. The speed is consistent; I can test it at any time of day and get about the same results. My friends who brag about their superfast Comcast (cable) internet also gripe about frequent slow-downs and "rush hour" issues.

And I don't have a plethora of ISPs to choose from. The only other truly viable line-based candidate would be Comcast. There are a couple of 3G "home hotspot" options but I wouldn't call those preferable at all, especially considering their cost.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The way it works in the UK is that the telephone network is owned by British Telecom (BT). They are an ISP themselves, but also act as a wholesaler, selling bandwidth on their network to other ISPs. My ISP buys a certain amount of bandwidth from BT.

In my case, the slowdown I see during business hours is because I live in a small village, which has quite a few "high-tech" businesses in the immediate local area. Our local telephone exchange, being rather old, has a limited capacity IP "pipe" connecting it to the rest of the BT IP network. That pipe gets overloaded during peak hours, resulting in a slowdown in performance for everybody. BT are gradually upgrading their network and adding capacity, but that upgrade hasn't reached down as far as local village telephone exchanges yet, and my local exchange has not yet been scheduled for an upgrade.

This is a very common situation in the UK. People who live in large towns and cities generally get much faster speeds than those like me who live in small villages. It's simply a matter of network capacity and has nothing to do with throttling or traffic management.

So it would seem that BT holds a monopoly position in the UK. Your "ISP" (using a subset of BT's available bandwidth) has evidently oversold/under provisioned its customer base, hence your degraded performance during business hours.

Based on what you've described, I'm not even sure why data caps are necessary since your bandwidth is effectively throttled by the usage from the "high-tech" businesses in your town.

Originally Posted by HarryT

For example, when my ISP here in the UK introduced a usage cap they reported that 0.1% of their users were using over 50% of their network bandwidth. It's only fair that high volume downloaders should pay more - it is a limited resource.

So did the usage cap have any effect? It doesn't sound like it, and I would imagine that those users that go over the cap just end up paying more for the same class of service, with no change in your ISP's marginal cost (but a substantial increase in profits.) I guess AT&T isn't so bad after all. Only 98% of their customers are overpaying. Your ISP seems to really be working it - 99.9% are overpaying. Ka-ching!

At your level, it is a "limited resource" by provisioning choice - your ISP's. They have signed up too many customers for the size of pipe they are leasing from BT.

What really bothers me with your situation, is that in spite of the data caps, it would seem you have paid for a certain class of service and you don't even get that except during certain parts of the day. The data caps AND poor service are indicative of the anti-competitive environment you find yourself in.

[ardeegee]

Time-Warner recently tried to roll out bandwidth caps. Tried.

http://boingboing.net/2009/04/16/tim...andwidt-1.html

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dumas

So it would seem that BT holds a monopoly position in the UK.

No, just where I live. Well over half the population of the country has access to cable, but it's not available where I live. A friend of mine has 100MBit/sec cable broadband.

Your "ISP" (using a subset of BT's available bandwidth) has evidently oversold/under provisioned its customer base, hence your degraded performance during business hours.

No, it's nothing to do with my ISP. As I've stated several times in this thread, it's a lack of bandwidth at my local telephone exchange. ie, it's BT who are the cause of the problem, not my ISP.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

All I know is we still have 3MB/s DSL, and honestly I don't care much. With the new caps, my DSL speed is almost self-regulating. It's enough for what I do, and surprisingly it's also enough to get really good quality from Netflix, and I only do that a couple hours a week (if that). My roommate watches videos and listens to podcasts, but it's mostly lower-bitrate stuff, and he doesn't do it often. His Hulu habits have decreased as their ads increased.

One thing I have to say, though, is that while some people I know (IRL) scoff at my speed, my DSL has been rock-solid. I've been back in Nashville since Feb 2010, and there has only been one internet outage in that time, and it lasted about 2-3 hours. The speed is consistent; I can test it at any time of day and get about the same results. My friends who brag about their superfast Comcast (cable) internet also gripe about frequent slow-downs and "rush hour" issues.

And I don't have a plethora of ISPs to choose from. The only other truly viable line-based candidate would be Comcast. There are a couple of 3G "home hotspot" options but I wouldn't call those preferable at all, especially considering their cost.

While it sux that you have few choices and are getting stuck w/a cap, as you say the cap is really a non-issue because your class of service is a de facto limit on on your data transmission anyway. Fortunately for you, the class of service is consistent and you don't get the double whammy that Harry is getting.

However, I say again, if there were real competition, there wouldn't be any caps or other nonsense going on.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Dumas

While it sux that you have few choices and are getting stuck w/a cap, as you say the cap is really a non-issue because your class of service is a de facto limit on on your data transmission anyway. Fortunately for you, the class of service is consistent and you don't get the double whammy that Harry is getting.

However, I say again, if there were real competition, there wouldn't be any caps or other nonsense going on.

Oh, I completely agree regarding competition. We see TV ads from other ISPs, but they are actually only available in the outlying areas that are underserved by the Big Two. So while it looks like there are options, there really aren't.

Things are fine while I'm happy with my service, but if I wasn't, my choices are to live with it, switch to Comcast, or move. I don't like any of those options. I'd much rather live in a world where telcos don't eat up everyone on their lines (which is what happened - we used to actually have more options) but that's a dream for the moment.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, just where I live. Well over half the population of the country has access to cable, but it's not available where I live. A friend of mine has 100MBit/sec cable broadband.

Does your friend have a data cap and if so, how much? How much do they pay and how does that compare to what you pay?

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it's nothing to do with my ISP. As I've stated several times in this thread, it's a lack of bandwidth at my local telephone exchange. ie, it's BT who are the cause of the problem, not my ISP.

That's why I referenced your ISP in quotes. They're just reselling BT. Are you saying that BT has no more bandwidth to sell your "ISP"? Have they stopped signing up new customers?

And what about the bandwidth caps your "ISP" implemented? Did they have any effect on service that you noticed? How long ago were the caps implemented?

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For us in the UK, 250GB/month sounds like an unbelievably generous allowance. Most UK ISPs cap at the level of 10-50GB/month, depending what package you buy.

When you factor in the 20+ million Netflix users plus Hulu and Skype, etc it is a generous allowance. They could have easily selected a lower cap knowing millions of people would pay more for the higher limit.

There have been unconfirmed reports that Netflix is trying to enter the British market but I imagine these lower caps is an obstacle.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dumas

Does your friend have a data cap and if so, how much? How much do they pay and how does that compare to what you pay?

He's paying £45/month compared to my £21/month. He doesn't have any download limits explicitly stated, but the service is subject to an "acceptable use policy", which means that if his ISP thinks that his usage is adversely impacting their network, they can impose traffic management to restrict usage.

That's why I referenced your ISP in quotes. They're just reselling BT. Are you saying that BT has no more bandwidth to sell your "ISP"? Have they stopped signing up new customers?

My ISP could certainly buy more bandwidth from BT, but then they'd have to increase the costs to their customers. My ISP offers three packages, with download limits of 50, 60, and 200GB/month respectively (there are other differences other than download caps). I subscribe to the middle one of these, because it suits my needs. The 200GB/month service would cost me £42/month - double what I'm paying now.

As I've said before, though, the amount of bandwidth my ISP buys from BT isn't what's restricting my download speeds - I'm restricted by the amount of bandwidth available at my local telephone exchange.

[Hellmark]

I use Netflix and Hulu for all my teaching watching needs. The amount I watch, with it defaulting to HD settings, those caps are able to be hit.

[elcreative]

What HarryT is saying concerning BT and other ISPs, is that bandwidth is related to physical equipment and physical transmission capabilities... in some country areas, the physical pipe to the net has a finite size as does the amount and quality of equipment in the exchanges. This is not an arbitrary limit, it's a physical limit... it should improve at some time but will require real investment in expanding infrastructure to provide increased bandwidth and it's got to be paid for by someone...

[HarryT]

That's right. BT is upgrading its network in a project known as "21CN" (21st Century Network), but that upgrade has not yet reached my local telephone exchange.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He's paying £45/month compared to my £21/month. He doesn't have any download limits explicitly stated, but the service is subject to an "acceptable use policy", which means that if his ISP thinks that his usage is adversely impacting their network, they can impose traffic management to restrict usage.

Thanks for posting that. His data rate is about 10x mine for less cost. Nice. I can only imagine what that speed must be like if he really gets what his ISP has promised.

Originally Posted by HarryT

My ISP could certainly buy more bandwidth from BT, but then they'd have to increase the costs to their customers. My ISP offers three packages, with download limits of 50, 60, and 200GB/month respectively (there are other differences other than download caps). I subscribe to the middle one of these, because it suits my needs. The 200GB/month service would cost me £42/month - double what I'm paying now.

And therein lies what I see as the crux of the problem. For twice the cost, you would have 3x+ the data cap. No relationship to marginal cost and users on the lower plans are overpaying compared to users on the top plan.

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I've said before, though, the amount of bandwidth my ISP buys from BT isn't what's restricting my download speeds - I'm restricted by the amount of bandwidth available at my local telephone exchange.

I'm not sure, but perhaps I'm confused by how you're using the term bandwidth? When I talk about bandwidth, I'm talking about the maximum throughput of a logical/physical connection in bit/s. As elcreative says, these have limitations based on the connection medium and the electronics provisioned at either end.

Since you described how your bandwidth ebbs and flows during business hours, your local loop doesn't seem to have any capacity problems. You say if your ISP were to increase the size of its pipe to BT's backbone (and the facilities exist to do so), it wouldn't improve your throughput. Is it possible that what you are really saying is you have network congestion in your local CO?

Perhaps the congestion (and failing to implement a solution for that issue) is the real reason for the data caps. Placing caps on users in the hope they would limit their time online could be one way they might try to alleviate congestion. You haven't said if you noticed any effect on service since caps were implemented. Then again, I doubt you would because it sounds like your ISP continues to sign up new customers which contributes to more congestion. It would appear your ISP is still oversubscribing, just not in the manner I have typically seen.

I don't see how .1% of users could have been using 50% of the bandwidth given the conditions you describe. Me thinks the issue pitched might not be the real issue.

Stumbled on this related article, Should broadband data hogs pay more? ISP economics say "no". Congestion is briefly mentioned here, but its a non-issue as it relates to marginal cost. Contrary to what the telcos would have you believe, the costs are almost all fixed costs. Even though it is US focused, you and others might find it informative.

[johnnyb]

I don't get it, maybe that's me not being an American... If you can't replace your TV with streaming over the Internet because you will be capped before the end of the month, then just don't do it... If you really need your TVs running 24/7, keep the TV connection (you don't need cable) for that and use whatever service for additional movies, shows etc