[ NNSquad ] ATT testing DSL bandwidth caps
--- Forwarded Message From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IP] ATT Monthly Bandwidth Caps Are Here Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:26:31 -0500 http://gizmodo.com/5075831/att-monthly-bandwidth-caps-are-here ATT's bandwidth caps for its high speed internet customers are here.=20=20 They're conducting a market trial in Reno that started on Nov. 1,=20=20 where users get between 20GB and 150GB a month, depending on their=20=20 speed tier. Unlike Time Warner's trial in Beamont, where caps were=20=20 only applied to new customers, existing customers will also be capped,=20= =20 though they'll get the roomier 150GB cap. If you bust the cap, ATT=20=20 will charge an extra dollar per gigabyte. Surveying the broadband landscape in this country, It's either caps=20=20 orslowdowns or filters. (Unless you're on Comcast, then it's a two-for-=20 one.) Caps seem like the lesser of the three evils, if only because=20=20 they're fairly transparent=97filtering and slowdowns are more insidious,=20= =20 since you might not be immediately aware it's happening. They're=20=20 essentially legitimized forms of sabotage. Verizon is the only major=20=20 ISP leaving traffic totally unfettered, but I wonder how long that=20=20 will last. snip [ And of course it was ATT who not so long ago in public statements noted that their DSL architecture was so superior to cable that they saw no need for DSL bandwidth caps -- and assumed that people with high bandwidth needs chose ATT for that reason! Now ATT's U-verse video is rolling out throughout ATT's network, and directly competes with outside video services. Oops! Suddenly ATT needs bandwidth caps! As Gomer Pyle would say, Surprise, surprise, surprise! That $1/GB charge for exceeding the cap is a nice round number too. The justification for that amount is ... oh, gee, I guess we don't get to see that. Probably proprietary information. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
[ NNSquad ] Re: ATT testing DSL bandwidth caps
The term sabotage is unduly pejorative and inflammatory, as well as simply inaccurate. In all cases, the goal is simply to lower costs to consumers by preventing them from consuming more bandwidth than they pay for (and thus causing the provider to lose money). Absent such constraints, the price of broadband service would have to be increased substantially, especially as consumers begin to use more bandwidth-intensive services (such as streaming video). Or it would have to be metered by the bit, a strategy which consumers have overwhelmingly rejected. Explicit caps are the tactic least liked by consumers, who despise the surprise overage fees imposed by cellular providers. Throttling and filtering impose implicit limits which the user, in most cases, does not notice and which actually improve his experience by preventing him from slowing down or degrading his own highest priority traffic (e.g. VoIP) by running a low priority application (e.g. a file transfer) at the same time. --Brett Glass [ Of course, caps carry a definite profit center bonus as compared with throttling, at least when subscribers are being charged extra for exceeding the caps (and especially when those caps are relatively low). That is, a circuit that is throttled but not capped will never bring in additional revenue since there's no cap to exceed (and so no excess data to charge for). Note also that currently announced caps, even for similar technology and speed circuits, are varying widely from different companies. This *suggests* that perhaps their levels are being set arbitrarily, or at least that's a reasonable assumption in the absence of public data to explain how these caps and related charges actually relate to claims of degrading other customers' traffic. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
[ NNSquad ] Re: ATT testing DSL bandwidth caps
Lauren Weinstein wrote: [ Of course, caps carry a definite profit center bonus as compared with throttling, at least when subscribers are being charged extra for exceeding the caps (and especially when those caps are relatively low). That is, a circuit that is throttled but not capped will never bring in additional revenue since there's no cap to exceed (and so no excess data to charge for). Note also that currently announced caps, even for similar technology and speed circuits, are varying widely from different companies. This *suggests* that perhaps their levels are being set arbitrarily, or at least that's a reasonable assumption in the absence of public data to explain how these caps and related charges actually relate to claims of degrading other customers' traffic. A more charitable interpretation: the ISPs have no idea what cap levels will be tolerated by consumers. So they are all guessing -- and maybe even trying different values from what other providers have announced -- in hopes of finding out what the results are. Too high a cap will mean that they get no benefit -- traffic continues at rates that the ISP cannot sustain in its current business model. Too low a cap will send users running to FiOS or DSL as soon as they get their first bill with $500 in overage fees (and there's a good chance consumers will refuse to pay, in addition to switching). As for those who will simply terminate customers who use too much bandwidth, one of my friends has a lovely gesture: sitting in a chair, he holds one foot out in front of him. Then gripping an imaginary revolver in his hand, he takes careful aim. But of course a monthly bandwidth cap has only an indirect effect on the ISP's biggest problem: use of a lot of bandwidth in a short period of time, whether by P2P or by users viewing video. It's true that somebody who does this _all the time_ will also run up against the caps. But somebody who does it for a few hours will degrade service for others in the area (and/or force the ISP to buy more bandwidth from upstream providers -- if not already in a no settlements peering arrangement), but won't run up against the cap. And somebody who does it late at night will run up against the cap even though they do not degrade other users' experience. I suspect what's happening, though, is that the business model designed in the 90s is simply bursting at the seeas, and all the ISPs are going to have to tear their hair for a while until they find a new, sustainable business model. Nothing surprising here. I commented earlier that finding a business model that works for 5 years is a miracle in this era of rapid technological change. [ In a truly competitive ISP marketplace, such experimentation with subscribers as the guinea pigs might perhaps be argued as justifiable. But in the current constrained marketplace for most U.S. Internet users (as far as reasonably-priced access services are concerned) it's far less tolerable. This is but another factor pointing at the possible need for regulatory intervention in this situation. It is unfair that customer A forced to buy Internet service from cable company Y in one area may have a 250 GB cap, while customer B getting the same speed service from company Z in another area is facing a 40 GB cap -- or even 5 GB. These are enormous differences that *will* negatively affect a wide range of Internet applications, especially at the lower cap levels. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
