AT&T believes Internet metering is “inevitable”

[Rockefeller]

According to AT&T, the largest Internet service provider (ISP) in the United States, recent data-capping pilot schemes launched by the likes of Time Warner Cable and Comcast are indicative of the “inevitable” shift towards online metering that unbalanced Net use is causing.


More pointedly, the majority of ISP account holders merely access the Net to check e-mail, make online purchases, or visit their social networking page, whereas others -- who also pay the same amount for their currently unlimited access -- are using up massive amounts of bandwidth on a regular basis via huge multimedia downloads or online videogame portals such as Xbox Live.

This growing imbalance has led to Time Warner Cable running a trial in Beaumont, Texas, whereby new customers in the region will be met with a monthly data usage allowance that will see them charged extra should they exceed it.

However, Time Warner is keen to stress that the majority of its customers would never likely feel the pinch of surcharged access as their online usage would take them nowhere near the monthly data limit.

“Average customers are way below the caps,” commented Kevin Leddy, executive vice president for advanced technology at Time Warner Cable in a New York Times report. “These caps give them years’ worth of growth before they’d ever pay any surcharges.”

Time Warner Cable’s trial offers new customers monthly usage plans with data caps of 5GB, 20GB or 40GB, with prices ranging between $30 USD and $50 USD. If usage should rise above the agreed cap level, customers must then pay a $1 USD surcharge for every extra gigabyte used.

The system therefore seems designed to penalise those who engage in the ever-more popular practice of P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing or the regular download of full-length movies, TV shows and music files through the Internet.

And that’s an angle also adopted recently by Comcast, which has announced a trial fair-use penalisation method that will impose a reduction in the connection speed of its more active download customers during peak access times.

Late last week, AT&T offered that imposing limitations on heavy bandwidth users is an inevitable industry reaction given the continuing increase of data volume presently being passed across its own network. According to the Texas-based provider, total bandwidth on its network “will increase by four times over the next three years.”

Source

 

[Ridge]

I've spoken with a few people that think metering is a good thing. They dont feel they should be paying $45 a month when the guy down the street downloading 250 gbs of music is paying the same thing.

I somewhat agree and disagree.

Can you imagine how much money someones unsecured wireless connection can end up costing them when metering takes effect!

 

[Rockefeller]

lol ,good point. That's why I have a password. I wonder what an Xbox 360 would do to the meter, or is it just for people that upload/download huge files?

 

[south]

Ughh. Here they go. They know bandwidth usage will be increasing dramatically, especially with video on demand, the convergence of television / music / internet / etc. They're setting it up to screw the general public well in advance of people realizing what's happening.

Someone call the ACLU!

Maybe they could do something beneficial for a change.

Edit: Also, keep in mind the dsl providers *already* throttle your bandwidth. Copper phone lines are capable of at least 25mb up/down. There are providers already offering 10mb up/down over copper (I know, my rep called me a few weeks ago). If the providers continue to sell us packages based upon the connection speed, they had better let us actually USE it.

Have they oversold their bandwidth? I think not. They just want to justify increasing prices, and perhaps monitoring your activities a bit more closely(?)

 

[DomainsInc]

I've spoken with a few people that think metering is a good thing. They dont feel they should be paying $45 a month when the guy down the street downloading 250 gbs of music is paying the same thing.

I somewhat agree and disagree.

Can you imagine how much money someones unsecured wireless connection can end up costing them when metering takes effect!

If people think prices will go down, they are mistaken. They will continue to pay the 45 and the guy downloading will pay more but they will save nothing.

 

[Irish31]

If people think prices will go down, they are mistaken. They will continue to pay the 45 and the guy downloading will pay more but they will save nothing.

This.

 

[HarveyJ]

I think metering is a good idea as well, but only if the low usage prices are accurate reflections.

My mum's stuck on a cable plan (can't get DSL) that's costing her $40pcm and she only checks her email.

I, on the other hand am paying $70 for 70gb (although if I was willing to get ADSL2 instead of cable, I could get 150gb for $60... but I prefer good ping times for gaming)

 

[Tia Wood]

I'm on satellite and on their 350mb download per day plan which I almost go over everyday and DON'T participate in file sharing. So, really this is a bunch of BS for people who use the internet a little more than the average user.

It won't hurt the average internet user as they won't go over.
It won't hurt big businesses as they have the cash to pay for it.
Who it will hurt are small business owners who depend on the internet to thrive.

When you have people using the internet for chatting, email, and myspace it may not seem like a big deal. But for us domainers, developers, small business owners it's BS. I'm already getting screwed overpaying for unreliable service that isn't even the fastest around (only thing available in my area). Why should I suffer for the lack of their technical capacity to handle their customers?

This reminds me of overselling on a hosting server. Well, duh! You overbook your customers and your resources are going to run out. Except in this case we're getting CHARGED for it.

Sorry, Rockefeller. You hit a nerve, lol.

Basically, charging more for bandwidth is putting a band-aid on the real problem in my eyes!

 

[draggar]

And we all know what the prices will do.

Same price as now (or higher) for basic, "unlimited" (er, umlimited?) for twice as much. If I pay for usage then I will call every time my service goes out (which now would be almost every day).

 

[BobDiGiTaL]

The only thing ISPs should charge a "fee" for is a faster connection.
Time = Money, don't you know?
As long as those nerds aren't slowing my speed down, they can download as many songs as they want. or play xbox live with 20 friends.

 

[Theo]

Time Warner/RoadRunner/BrightHouse have increased the bandwidth to 15 Mbps, without increasing the main pipes. End result: more people maxing out their capacity, therefore slower speeds. I complained about the fact that I am paying business level connection and my speed is less than advertised because of the over-subscription of the service. In countries of Asia, like South Korea, Japan etc. the infrastructure allows for much higher speeds in the 25 to 40 Mbps range, at a fraction of the cost.

 

[HarveyJ]

BobDigital: That's the thing, they ARE slowing you down through their over use.