# AT&T Starts Metered Billing Trial In Reno



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

As per Broadband Reports


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

Well, this is the kind of $H!^@ You can expect when the FCC allowed them to MONOPOLIZE the telco industry by taking over Bellsouth. I knew something was going to happen eventually when the FCC imposed on them to provide a cheap package for new customers. Well, here's their idea to generate more money without breaking that agreement. Provide a $20 Dsl package with a 150gig max usage and charge $1 for every gig over the contracted amount! What a bunch of corporate A$$ES!!!!!


----------



## philslc (Dec 2, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> As per Broadband Reports


Pay for what you use. What a novel concept.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Broadband ISPs have been selling their services as unlimited for years and years. Bandwidth is not just something you run out of. I can pay a flat rate for phone service, why not broadband?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> I can pay a flat rate for phone service, why not broadband?


Because your voice conversations take less bandwidth now than they did the first time you talked on the phone.

There was a time when all Internet traffic was throttled by the modem speeds of the day. Today, when computers are capable of chewing up multi-gigabytes a day, they may have reached the practical limit.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I wonder if they will exempt DirecTV DOD from this since they now have the deal where they sell DirecTV?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

harsh said:


> Because your voice conversations take less bandwidth now than they did the first time you talked on the phone.
> 
> There was a time when all Internet traffic was throttled by the modem speeds of the day. Today, when computers are capable of chewing up multi-gigabytes a day, they may have reached the practical limit.


So you support caps and metered billing on something that's traditionally been flat rate?


----------



## philslc (Dec 2, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> So you support caps and metered billing on something that's traditionally been flat rate?


Yes!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Why? I see absolutely no benefit to meter access, except more money for ISPs. It's pretty sad to see people actually support this crap.


----------



## IcedOmega13 (Mar 3, 2008)

bad for the consumer yes, but at a buisness stand point I can only imagine the fear that most isp's realized when peer to peer exchange reared its head. It really comes down to that. p2p will kill flat rate internet. There are to many people taking advantage of that, which in turn runs the cost up for everyone.
If a company provides a service with an expectation of use, but then ends up providing more an never raises their price how would they come up with the funds to maintain the servers to keep it all going? I can't blaim them, but I'm not gonna be happy with it. (especially if it gets to my area)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> So you support caps and metered billing on something that's traditionally been flat rate?


Computer based communities haven't traditionally been flat rate. Flat rate is something that didn't appear until the '90s. Some regions of the World remain usage sensitive today.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> Why? I see absolutely no benefit to meter access, except more money for ISPs. It's pretty sad to see people actually support this crap.


The benefit might be that you might get what you pay for. Currently if you subscribe to most broadband services, you get some claptrap about "up to" speeds that are usually 40-200% higher than you'll typically experience.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

harsh said:


> The benefit might be that you might get what you pay for. Currently if you subscribe to most broadband services, you get some claptrap about "up to" speeds that are usually 40-200% higher than you'll typically experience.


I remain open to see this turn out differently, but why do I get the feeling that metered billing will result in paying the same up front cost that we do now, with the same exact quality of service we have now, but with the added bonus of paying more if we use more than what they want us to. Instead, they should drop the up front cost a little and use any additional money they bring in in overage fees to improve the network.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

For those into web surfing, email and who occasionally watch YouTube, there won't be a any noticeable service changes. If you think the internet was conceived to watch high definition TV 'on the cheap', then you won't be happy.

--- CHAS


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't like it... but I understand it.

Again there is a certain irony to what people expect companies to do for them vs what they do for companies.

If you think it is a right to have unlimited internet at a flat rate forever... do you also think you should work for a flat rate at your job forever? Or would you like to be paid according to how much and the quality of the work that you do?


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

I hate this idea of metered ISP. Especially when other countries are using BETTER technology and HIGHER speed/bandwidth capabilities. Instead of squeezing every penny out of the consumer, how about upgrading our system to handle the change!


----------



## philslc (Dec 2, 2006)

Smthkd said:


> I hate this idea of metered ISP. Especially when other countries are using BETTER technology and HIGHER speed/bandwidth capabilities. Instead of squeezing every penny out of the consumer, how about upgrading our system to handle the change!


All it takes is money. Where do you think the money is going to come from?


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

HDMe said:


> I don't like it... but I understand it.
> 
> Again there is a certain irony to what people expect companies to do for them vs what they do for companies.
> 
> If you think it is a right to have unlimited internet at a flat rate forever... do you also think you should work for a flat rate at your job forever? Or would you like to be paid according to how much and the quality of the work that you do?


Well, it would be kind of like your company says, well, I know we always had an annual review cycle for raises and that is the understanding you had when you were hired, but now, we are going to stop giving raises so suck it. Sure, you can decide to leave and go somewhere else, but if there are only 2 other employers in town and they do the same thing, you are pretty mcuh stuck.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

harsh said:


> The benefit might be that you might get what you pay for. Currently if you subscribe to most broadband services, you get some claptrap about "up to" speeds that are usually 40-200% higher than you'll typically experience.


I pay for 15Mb down, thanks to Powerboost I get anywhere from 20-30Mb down, if the connection on the other end can support speeds that fast. More often then not I maximize my connection out. When downloading from the big guys like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, et al, I get 14Mb+ all the time. I've had Road Runner for 4 years, been provisioned for 3Mb, 5Mb, 6Mb, 8Mb and now 15Mb, never had any problem reaching and maintaining ~95% of my allotted provisioned bandwidth on a consistent basis.



harsh said:


> Computer based communities haven't traditionally been flat rate. Flat rate is something that didn't appear until the '90s. Some regions of the World remain usage sensitive today.


Well broadband has traditionally been flat rate, screw the other ' computer based communities' we're talking broadband here specifically, not anything else. 15 years ago AOL billed by the hour but that went away after awhile. So I guess you want to go back to the good ole days then

It really amazes me. For a group of individuals who live for high tech that there isn't a bigger backlash. Or maybe it's because we're talking about a telco ISP here, not one of those evil EVIL cableco ISPs. When there's mention about Comcast's cap, or TW trial cap in Texas, wholly crap, the world was going to end. Now that this is a telco, I guess they get the free pass, as did Frontier and they're 5Gb/month policy.


----------



## boelters (Feb 10, 2008)

Will spam emails be deducted from the amount metered? Users do not request the spam emails, why should they have to pay to have them delivered.

Maybe this would be a good way to get some action or reducing spam. Remember when laws were created to reduce spam faxes?

Would this type of change void their franchise agreements with governmental entities? If so, maybe different ISP’s would come in and offer services. Especially if the new ISP’s would be allowed to use the same wiring, etc.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lee L said:


> Well, it would be kind of like your company says, well, I know we always had an annual review cycle for raises and that is the understanding you had when you were hired, but now, we are going to stop giving raises so suck it. Sure, you can decide to leave and go somewhere else, but if there are only 2 other employers in town and they do the same thing, you are pretty mcuh stuck.


This still only indicated one-way-directional thinking.

Why do people think everyone owes them but they owe nothing in return?

We all want raises but want prices to go down. We want unlimited internet but we want to leave work early.

As I said, I prefer unlimited over metered and as long as I have a choice I will go for unlimited... but I also understand the perspective from the other side of the fence. If you open an all-you-can-eat buffet and find that people are eating more on average than you originally thought you can either keep raising the prices for everyone OR start metering and charger per refill.

So... ISPs can either keep raising their flat rates OR start metering so people only pay for what they use.

I also find things like this interesting when we see people asking for a la carte satellite so they can only pay for channels they watch instead of paying for a suite of channels... but many of those same people don't want to pay as they go for their internet.

Some folks keep bouncing on both sides of the fence over similar issues it seems.


----------



## 408SJC (Sep 4, 2006)

To me it seems that att wants to just get more money and jump on the bandwagon. They think that people will forget that when comcast first announced they are going to try metered service (even when they rolled it out nationally I just got my email telling me) because of people hogging bandwidth by using programs like p2p and others, that there service was superior because the amount of bandwidth a particular customer has doesn't depend on how many people are using the internet traffic in there area. Therefore hoggers wont affect other users. Now metered service sounds good to them because they see and understand that they is potential for a big profit.


----------



## 408SJC (Sep 4, 2006)

also other countries have faster service and pay less per month


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

HDMe said:


> This still only indicated one-way-directional thinking.
> 
> Why do people think everyone owes them but they owe nothing in return?
> 
> ...


Keep telling yourself they're similar but they're not. Using your totally invalid analogy, getting a raise at work would be like a rate increase on your broadband bill. This would be comparable to a raise for hourly or salaried employees. Metered bandwidth would be like commission or salaried commission. The more you sell, the more you get paid. The more bandwidth you use the more you pay.

I'd be happy to pay a few bucks more for uncapped service, and if Time Warner is ever stupid enough to implement caps and metered usage nationwide, I'll switch to a Biz Class plan. Comcast Business is uncapped, I'd imagine TW would be the same. If I wanted metered access I'd get satellite internet, I want the same unlimited internet I've been getting for years. I have no problems with rate increases, it's part of business. Indirect rate increases that attempt to restrict use is what I have a problem with.

If the all you can eat restaurant doesn't have enough tables for all it's patrons, there's only one solution, add more space. There is no bandwidth shortage, all ISPs have to do is upgrade their service infrastructure to meet the needs of their consumers if there's problems. And I see the additional revenue from overage fees being just that, additional revenue. I doubt it will be invested in network upgrades.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

408SJC said:


> also other countries have faster service and pay less per month


How do they do that? 

--- CHAS


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

408SJC said:


> also other countries have faster service and pay less per month


I notice this as well... but consider the comparison.

Many countries elsewhere in the world are not as big as a single US state, much less the entire USA country. So it is much cheaper to wire up a location of that size with one type of service. So a more fair comparison would be to compare a foreign country with a single US state.

Beyond that... consider also that while this other country might have super-internet, maybe they don't have clean water or lots of Best Buy stores around and all the latest hollywood movies coming out + lots and lots of TV...

How quickly we in the US forget how much stuff we have and just how good we have it. I betcha many folks in those foreign countries with the cheap and fast internet would happily downgrade to 6MB (even metered rate) if they would get all the other perks we have here in the US.

Just comparing one line item doesn't tell the whole story really.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> I'd be happy to pay a few bucks more for uncapped service, and if Time Warner is ever stupid enough to implement caps and metered usage nationwide, I'll switch to a Biz Class plan. Comcast Business is uncapped, I'd imagine TW would be the same. If I wanted metered access I'd get satellite internet, I want the same unlimited internet I've been getting for years. I have no problems with rate increases, it's part of business. Indirect rate increases that attempt to restrict use is what I have a problem with.


But what really is the difference? If they raise their unlimited rate to whatever they figure the heaviest user to be OR start metering and do it that way?

What you're really arguing is that you don't want to pay what they think it is worth. My DSL is $42.95 per month for 6MB unlimited. IF they went to metered billing and the math worked out that the rate X my actual usage was in the same ballpark then I'd have no complaint. IF the bill would go up I'd have to decide if it is worth it, and if not whether I want to cut back on usage OR switch to a different plan.

This is just another way of arguing the a la carte for satellite. People say they only want to pay for what they use BUT want the built-in discounts that come from the suites... So they want a discount not to have ESPN but not proportional to their package rate but rather an a la cart rate. It sounds to me you're arguing the same, only in reverse, for metered internet. You're willing to pay more but only a little more... You don't want to actually pay for what you are using if it means you pay more.

Again, I am against metered internet and hope it doesn't come to that where I live... but I can't help but understand why it might happen. Wanting and expecting are two different things, and while I absolutely want unlimited internet I don't feel any need or expectation that I am owed it somehow.

That's all I'm really saying. Folks want to have their cake, eat it too, but don't want to take part in the baking.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, considering that the companies that now comprise ATT have taken Billions from the Feds over the years in building their infrastructure and was protected from competition in various ways and nearly all the Cable Cos have protected territories, comparing anything they do to the free market is totally out the window.

Personally, I am totally against a la carte as I beleive it will kill most of the channels out there and will not lead to lower prices for the consumer.

I also fully understand the economic realities of the demand for lower prices and have thought for a long time that we are all killing ourselves as a country due to only using price as the comparator. Heck, I work for a general contractor and we have to compete against what we feel are inferior competitors with worse service and quality all the time and owners always say they want quality, but in the end, they are only willing to pay a tiny fraction of one percent for it. 

Alll I am saying is that if you offer a service at a specific price level, then you take away some portion of the value of the service but do not lower and potentially increase the cost of that service, the consumers of the service have every right to be upset by that. SInce there is not true competition in this arena, the consumer often has no choice but to take it and complain.

Couple that with the fact that "coincidentally" ATT is starting to offer video services that are potential competitors with the very kind of traffic (DirecTV on Demand, Hulu and other network internet video, etc) that might lead to higher usage and there is more than enough for someone to logically conclude that just possibly the caps are not good for the consumers but instead might help some other agenda of ATT.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/More-Specifics-On-ATTs-Cap-Plans-98907

AT&T Basic (DSL only) Up-to 768 Kbps 20 GB per month
AT&T Express Up-to 1.5 Mbps 40 GB per month
AT&T Pro Up-to 3.0 Mbps 60 GB per month
AT&T Elite Up-to 6.0 Mbps 80 GB per month
AT&T Max (U-verse only) Up-to 10.0 Mbps 150 GB per month

Sounds great. Less than comcast....


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

I can only say that I am very happy that my ISP has not implemented this. Since I work from home using a remote desktop I can only imagine what my internet bill would be if I had metered usage. 

While I can see how a business would justify this it can only mean bad news for the consumer. If my ISP started this I would be immediately changing to another because it directly effects my ability to do my job.


----------



## GaryPotter (Apr 12, 2008)

I certainly hope somebody challenges this in court. I don't know much about the technicalities, but this can't be legal.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

GaryPotter said:


> I certainly hope somebody challenges this in court. I don't know much about the technicalities, but this can't be legal.


Unfortunately internet service isnt handled the same as phone service. So in that sense it is legal, its just another product. Besides do you think Uncle Sam is in any hurry to clip the wings on its biggest [strike]stool pigeon[/strike] provider of information on terrorists?


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

Bandwidth is so much cheaper now than it was when I first signed up for cable internet service and the price of bandwidth continues to drop. The idea of metered internet is really a ploy to stifle comptetition. 

AT&T doesn't want you to use their internet connection to compete with the television service they offer. They don't want you using your satellite company's "video on demand" service through the internet or to use one of those Netflix boxes. They want to force you to purchase both your internet service and television service through them.

-- Roger


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

GaryPotter said:


> I certainly hope somebody challenges this in court. I don't know much about the technicalities, but this can't be legal.


What about it seems illegal to you?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

jadebox said:


> Bandwidth is so much cheaper now than it was when I first signed up for cable internet service and the price of bandwidth continues to drop. The idea of metered internet is really a ploy to stifle comptetition.
> 
> AT&T doesn't want you to use their internet connection to compete with the television service they offer. They don't want you using your satellite company's "video on demand" service through the internet or to use one of those Netflix boxes. They want to force you to purchase both your internet service and television service through them.
> 
> -- Roger


Bandwidth probably is cheaper once you get to some major backbone but the problem isn't the price of bandwidth but its availability on your ISP's infrastructure. Many ISP's are totally oversold so their service quality is deteriorating. For most ISPs, replacing a thousand miles of cable with fiber is not something they can afford to do so their only recourse is to force reduction of individual usage.

How many web page views can you fit into the bandwidth consumed during transmission of a single HD movie?


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

I can see the ad campaign now.

With AT&T and its new Metered Billing you can download a months worth* of content in just seconds!

* Please note, AT&T has determined a months worth of content is just 600KB because no one could possibly need more data than that!


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

HIPAR said:


> Bandwidth probably is cheaper once you get to some major backbone but the problem isn't the price of bandwidth but its availability on your ISP's infrastructure.


The high-speed internet companies priced their services ten years ago. As their costs for bandwidth have dropping over time, the price they charge for high-speed internet service has not dropped. If they haven't been investing that income into improving their infrastructure, what have they been doing with it?

-- Roger


----------



## JcT21 (Nov 30, 2004)

jadebox said:


> Bandwidth is so much cheaper now than it was when I first signed up for cable internet service and the price of bandwidth continues to drop. The idea of metered internet is really a ploy to stifle comptetition.
> 
> AT&T doesn't want you to use their internet connection to compete with the television service they offer. They don't want you using your satellite company's "video on demand" service through the internet or to use one of those Netflix boxes. They want to force you to purchase both your internet service and television service through them.
> 
> -- Roger


i was thinking the same thing while reading the other thread at dslreports. what you say makes sense.

i have att/bellsouth 6.0 service with 4 pcs, including a wii and xbox. ... 2 teenagers glued to youtube and myspace..., yeah, ill hit the cap pretty quick.

only other option here is cable. its so expensive!!. i pay att 42.95 month for my 6.0 dsl ... same speed with cable is 159.99 month. which id never ever pay that for internet to anyone. their 512/128 service is 39.99.... slower but it doesnt have caps.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

JcT21 said:


> i was thinking the same thing while reading the other thread at dslreports. what you say makes sense.
> 
> .... slower but it doesnt have caps.


Yet


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

jadebox said:


> The high-speed internet companies priced their services ten years ago. As their costs for bandwidth have dropping over time, the price they charge for high-speed internet service has not dropped. If they haven't been investing that income into improving their infrastructure, what have they been doing with it?
> 
> -- Roger


I really can't say for sure .. can only guess:

a) Maintaining aging infrastructure (fixing your old car instead of buying a new one)

b) Connecting new neighborhoods (hopefully with greater bit capacity)

c) Paying increasing costs of doing business and overhead

d) Paying Taxes

e) Lobbying Washington (you need laws that favor you)

f) Rewarding investors (nothing wrong with that)

--- CHAS


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

HDMe said:


> But what really is the difference? If they raise their unlimited rate to whatever they figure the heaviest user to be OR start metering and do it that way?
> 
> What you're really arguing is that you don't want to pay what they think it is worth. My DSL is $42.95 per month for 6MB unlimited. IF they went to metered billing and the math worked out that the rate X my actual usage was in the same ballpark then I'd have no complaint. IF the bill would go up I'd have to decide if it is worth it, and if not whether I want to cut back on usage OR switch to a different plan.
> 
> ...


Wow you'd make a pretty good head shrink. You're putting words in my mouth by reading in-between lines that don't exist. I have no problem paying the $50 I pay for Road Runner Turbo, I'd have no problem paying another $5, $10 or $20 more either. I used to pay $85 for 6Mb, I now pay $50 for 15Mb. Granted that $85 includes no bundling discount since I still had DirecTV at the time, but I'm not afraid of high costs, I'll pay it. My issue is, I don't like ISPs telling me what is an excessive amount of bandwidth and changing me for what they think is too much.

Times change 10 years ago 1Gb was huge, now it's nothing. I'm paying for a constant connection at a rated speed, I'm not paying for a connection based on the amount of data transferred. I'm expecting unlimited broadband, because that's how it's been for a very long time. Bandwidth gets cheaper, invest into system upgrades that can support speeds for customers if the ISP can't presently. And I'm totally 110% against a la carte TV. As the internet continues to evolve and get more and more content rich, caps will be hit in no time


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

I pay $47/month for Comcast SuperDuper cable. They have now instituted a 250GB cap. Wow, that sounds like a lot!
Sure, except Netflix starts streaming HD movies on Nov 19. At 4-10GB EACH, how many movies - on top of normal browsing - can you download? Not one a day! Granted, most people won't watch that many and 250GB is probably fine - but more and more Hi-Speed internet 'products' are becoming available. Many companies (e.g. Microsoft) talk about the computing cloud. Nice. A great big cloud full of program goodness with little tiny pipes sticking out of it.

The other snafu with Comcast is they don't provide any way to monitor the amount you've used. According to Comcast, you will receive a phone call notifying you that you have exceeded your monthly allocation. The second time they just cut you off until the month is over. Third time they can drop you.

So, basically, the world is going to broadband EVERYTHING, and US companies are narrowing how much you can download. Once again we step backwards into our own $h...


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

dmspen said:


> I pay $47/month for Comcast SuperDuper cable. They have now instituted a 250GB cap. Wow, that sounds like a lot!
> Sure, except Netflix starts streaming HD movies on Nov 19. At 4-10GB EACH, how many movies - on top of normal browsing - can you download? Not one a day! Granted, most people won't watch that many and 250GB is probably fine - but more and more Hi-Speed internet 'products' are becoming available. Many companies (e.g. Microsoft) talk about the computing cloud. Nice. A great big cloud full of program goodness with little tiny pipes sticking out of it.
> 
> The other snafu with Comcast is they don't provide any way to monitor the amount you've used. According to Comcast, you will receive a phone call notifying you that you have exceeded your monthly allocation. The second time they just cut you off until the month is over. Third time they can drop you.
> ...


 Don't despair. I'm sure you will soon be offered a higher limit perhaps as a "business" for another $50.


----------

