AT&T has lost their minds

[Blueface]

Crap!
I just got my Apple TV and am streaming Netflix movies.

[DennisP]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Crap!
I just got my Apple TV and am streaming Netflix movies.

That's the main reason behind this. ATT wants people to buy their movies on demand, not get them elsewhere.

[Kreth]

Originally Posted by DennisP

That's the main reason behind this. ATT wants people to buy their movies on demand, not get them elsewhere.

I'd expect Netflix and other streaming providers to get involved as soon as they start getting complaints from customers who can't download the unlimited content that they're paying for.
This is like a restaurant advertising an all-you-can-eat buffet, then telling you that you're only allowed two trips because 2% of their customers are hogging the King Crab legs.
Posted via Mobile Device

[marge796]

This is the last straw. I'm out, we have two iphones, uverse, home phone and internet service. They have just lost a 10+ year customer. And when they ask why I'm canceling all of my services I'm going to give them both barrels & reload. NOT HAPPY!!!!!!





Chris.....

[Brutus2600]

Oh absolutely. The business reasoning behind it is genius. They say 2% of their customer base are the only ones being affected. So say 10% of those have the option or motivation to change providers when the limit goes into effect...that's only 0.2% of their total customer base that they'll potentially lose. They'll save on bandwidth, then entice the rest of their customers to use THEIR on demand stuff instead of Netflix/Hulu/Etc, increasing their revenues in that area as well.

Trust me, even though I probably rarely get close to the 250gb limit, out of principle I would switch providers if I had the option, but I don't even have another DSL provider option in my area, much less fiber or cable provider.

The joys of living on the outskirts of town

[BloodSpite]

Originally Posted by Brutus2600

Oh absolutely. The business reasoning behind it is genius. They say 2% of their customer base are the only ones being affected. So say 10% of those have the option or motivation to change providers when the limit goes into effect...that's only 0.2% of their total customer base that they'll potentially lose. They'll save on bandwidth, then entice the rest of their customers to use THEIR on demand stuff instead of Netflix/Hulu/Etc, increasing their revenues in that area as well.

Trust me, even though I probably rarely get close to the 250gb limit, out of principle I would switch providers if I had the option, but I don't even have another DSL provider option in my area, much less fiber or cable provider.

The joys of living on the outskirts of town

I feel your pain. Even having swapped to Verizon it is still next to impossible for me to watch NetFlix (save for DVD's) I can't use probably a 3rd of Xbox Live functions, and the same with my Playstation.

As more and more industries go to web driven and stream driven content it becomes harder and harder to operate in the rural parts of America, especially with these data caps. I'm too far out for any wire driven access, at current. It's either cellular or satellite, and satellite quite frankly is not even close to being worth the cost after having had it for a year.

[Brutus2600]

Larry, it's 250 gigs, not megs Trust me, if it was megs I would be dropping AT&T like a rock and signing up for dial up.

[lbowles2]

Originally Posted by Brutus2600

Larry, it's 250 gigs, not megs Trust me, if it was megs I would be dropping AT&T like a rock and signing up for dial up.

Wow... I should just go back to bed...
I probably shouldn't do this but I will admit that I am a network admin.

Again I say... I should just go back to bed....

All I can say is Roku, hulu plus, and Netflix $16.00 a month for all and no bs.

[jledou]

Scott,
The UK and other countries are starting to see data caps as well in some of the companies. Unlike us though there are other choices that still offer unlimited plans.
Netflix and other companies are currently covered under peering agreements between companies (basically I allow your stuff to run on my network if you allow my stuff to run on yours). ISPs do get paid by both content providers and content consumers they just want to get paid more for certain types of content ... I would still call this a net neutrality issue and a fact that ISPs have not invested in upgrading their backbone as content increased.

[Brutus2600]

Originally Posted by jledou

Scott,
The UK and other countries are starting to see data caps as well in some of the companies. Unlike us though there are other choices that still offer unlimited plans.
Netflix and other companies are currently covered under peering agreements between companies (basically I allow your stuff to run on my network if you allow my stuff to run on yours). ISPs do get paid by both content providers and content consumers they just want to get paid more for certain types of content ... I would still call this a net neutrality issue and a fact that ISPs have not invested in upgrading their backbone as content increased.

Bingo.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by jledou

Scott,
The UK and other countries are starting to see data caps as well in some of the companies. Unlike us though there are other choices that still offer unlimited plans.
Netflix and other companies are currently covered under peering agreements between companies (basically I allow your stuff to run on my network if you allow my stuff to run on yours). ISPs do get paid by both content providers and content consumers they just want to get paid more for certain types of content ... I would still call this a net neutrality issue and a fact that ISPs have not invested in upgrading their backbone as content increased.

I'm sure the cost of infrastructure upgrade in the US is incredible and mui prohibitive based on the population density (compared to the UK, for instance), but being as we're accustomed to getting raped for an inferior product, there's little shouting going on.
Caps will come and go in those other markets, and I imagine they're temporary fixes until the pipe can catch up to the volume. If there's competitors, someone is going to be standing by to take care of the people and some companies just aren't going to survive.
Point being, the infrastructure will expand quickly in those dense competitive markets. Not here.

[BloodSpite]

Originally Posted by shilala

I'm sure the cost of infrastructure upgrade in the US is incredible and mui prohibitive based on the population density (compared to the UK, for instance), but being as we're accustomed to getting raped for an inferior product, there's little shouting going on.
Caps will come and go in those other markets, and I imagine they're temporary fixes until the pipe can catch up to the volume. If there's competitors, someone is going to be standing by to take care of the people and some companies just aren't going to survive.
Point being, the infrastructure will expand quickly in those dense competitive markets. Not here.

I can assure you cost is a major factor

One of the first things I learned when I got in to telecom is that carriers do not like to fix things if they work. Period. In parts of California there are still the old 1940 manual switching mechanism in use. When you hear the audible "clicks" on your phone before ringing, it means your call passed through a similar system. Your hearing the connection being made physically versus digitally.

AT&T doesn't do themselves any favors on the wireless side with their turf pricing for contractors. For a good example, AT&T is basically the Wal Mart of wireless carriers when it comes to other companies. I have seen more tower companies and towers crews literally ground out of existence trying to float the note for a AT&T roll out.

U-verse is the last gasp for AT&T's wire line services. With the monumental decrease in wire line use by folks swapping to their cell phones for their primary communication device, we as consumers set our own selves up for failure.

[ucla695]