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

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

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 :-)
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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
[Reply]

It has always been the case that a very small portion of an ISP's customer use most of their bandwidth so I don't blame them for putting a bandwidth cap on. My problem is that 250MB is pretty small even for most users. Most months that would be fine but what about when Microsoft releases a service pack for either Windows or Office? Windows 7 SP1 can be around 100MB. Almost half your bandwidth allotment is gone after that. I think 500MB would be realistic.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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

how? they both have seperate functions.

what it is really like is a cheap restaraunt that you can only get to via a toll road. who nneds whom more in that analogy or here? att and the provders have all the cards really. content is easy to fill
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

Netflix and other streaming providers are actually the source of the issue.
ISP's want a taste of the streaming revenue. It's been a big issue for some time now. As the streaming outfits get more and more customers, the isp's have to dump more and more money into developing infrastructure to support the much greater demand for data.
They really do have a legitimate gripe, depending how you look at it.
Take Netflix, for instance. They are pouring tons and tons of data into the pipe. The more they dump, the bigger pipe the ISP has to provide, and their profits go down while Netflix profits swell.
The only thing they can do to muscle money out of Netflix is to make it inaccessible to their customers. If the consumer can't use it, they won't buy it.
It'll take awhile before this strategy gains any weight, but soon they'll have a gun to Netflix's head, and maybe they'll start sharing revenue.
I think Netflix would be nuts to cave in. If they do, we as customers lose. The isp's will never become competitive until the whole deal becomes completely deregulated, anyway.
This type of thing isn't a problem in other countries because there's true competition between the isp's. The best service wins, and consumers have options. Because of FCC regulation here, providers are left spending all their time and money fighting over their piece of the pie, rather than building a bigger pie.
As demand for data increases, it'll reach a point where the FCC will have to loosen the knoose. Expect that to happen when it becomes a big enough problem that the people are willing to allow a tax on data flow.
As with everything, there's always a big, complicated mess behind what's happening. This thing is a lot more complicated, but it boils down to greed and government, just like usual.
Please excuse me if that last comment sounds political. It's not meant to be at all. It's just my opinion on the condition of the condition. :-)
[Reply]

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.... :-)
[Reply]

I get everyone wants to make money but one company doesnt need and IMO shouldnt do everything. Cuz then it just creates problems like this one. Do one thing, do it well and people will come... :-)

And doesn't netflix have to pay an ISP for its use of the pipe aswell? I mean its not like they own it or something, they have to pay for internet like i do(in some twisted way, like paying for ISP bandwidth usage). So the ISP would is making money off both of us. Maybe i dont know enough about servers and the web.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

Bingo.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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.....
[Reply]

:-) :-)
[Reply]