AT&T To Impose Broadband Data Cap

Lovers of streaming movies may soon have to pay for the privilege of online film binges. AT&T will begin capping customers based on data usage, according to Broadband Reports.

DSL customers will reportedly be capped at 150 GB and U-Verse users at 250 GB per month, beginning May 2. AT&T users exceeding these caps more than three times in three separate months will be subject to $10 overage charges for each 50 GB over the limit.

The company says the caps will only affect about 2 percent of their DSL customers, asserting that the average customer uses about 18 GB each month . A statement AT&T provided to GigaOm also noted that "importantly, we are not reducing the speeds, terminating service or limiting available data like some others in the industry."

As with wireless plans, AT&T will notify customers when they are at 65, 90 and 100 percent of their monthly data usage.

VentureBeat notes that while figures that place activities like watching a video on YouTube for ten minutes at 10 to 50 megabytes make these data caps pretty reasonable, rising cloud technologies that sync files with remote servers in the background could face data usage issues under such a plan

AT&T introduced per-usage charging with smartphone plans that capped data use as iPhone usage proved to be too much for the network. Comcast began implementing data caps back in 2008.

The full statement from AT&T, which as received by Engadget, is below:

We are committed to providing a great experience for all of our Internet customers. Less than 2 percent of our Internet customers could be impacted by this approach - those who are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. We will communicate early and often with these customers so they are well aware of their options before they incur any additional usage charges.

The top 2 percent of residential subscribers uses about 20 percent of the bandwidth on our network. Just one of these high-traffic users can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers' access to and use of the network. Our new plan addresses another concern: customers strongly believe that only those who use the most bandwidth should pay more than those who don't use as much. That's exactly what this does - and again, 98% of our customers will not be impacted by this.

Comments

[steveinohio]

11:57 AM on 05/09/2011

It's time to start regulating ISP's like utilities. The ideal free market offers lots of options for a service with those companies competing fiercely for your money. If none offer a good value, you can say "No deal" and walk away.

A few things don't work that way. We've decided things like electricity, water, and home heating are too vital to our standard of living, and too easily controlled by a handful of companies. We put the government in charge or we let the private companies run things under stringent regulations to make sure access is available to everyone at prices that roughly reflect the cost.

A handful of ISP's control the market, and they are using their status as gatekeepers to extract monopoly profits when the marginal cost of data is near-zero. Simultaneously, the ability to get online is now essential in the modern world. Asking a consumer to go without it is the 21st century equivalent of asking them to shut off their electricity if they don't like the terms of service. We can't allow a few corporations to charge double or triple the fair price for internet access and drag their feet in making it better simply because it enhances their profits. It does so at the expense of consumers, and the rest of the marketplace that could be developing the killer applications of tomorrow that might be dependent on ubiquitous, cheap data.

[DRaymond]

10:10 PM on 05/02/2011

Here is my question regarding the U-Verse cap:

Does the 250 gb limit include your AT&T IPTV use?  Does it include your AT&T VOIP use?  If not then it is plainly not a matter of protecting your network from heavy data use but pushing people into using your own services versus for example Skype or Netflix.

[steveinohio]

11:39 AM on 05/09/2011

And we have a winner! The data caps do NOT count AT&T's own IPTV or VOIP usage against the data cap. You can leave your television on 24/7 and never hit the cap. Because AT&T's TV service is delivered over the same "series of tubes" as YouTube or Netflix would be, it should be equally capable of causing congestion. It has never been about congestion. They have plenty of bandwidth, and even if they didn't, bandwidth is so cheap that adding more capacity would not require much investment.

This is all about targeting Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, and all the other streaming services that you might use to entertain yourself instead of using their TV package. They are targeting the cord-cutters. If people figure out that they can watch 90% of the stuff they watch now without a cable bill, that means a lot of lost revenue.

IMO, they are guilty of a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act for engaging in anti-competitive behavior that abuses their positions as an ISP gatekeeper and harms the marketplace for consumers.

[rmonroe]

11:15 AM on 05/02/2011

Welcome to the Republican United States where big business can stomp on you daily and you have to just take it. Well republicans, you asked for it when you protested Net Neutrality rules, now be prepared to pay the price.

[Nicta Piway]

02:37 PM on 04/15/2011

I know I'm not exactly average, I personally have a ps3, laptop, netbook, server, and 3 desktops. I use steam, netflix, psn, run a minecraft server, almost always have atleast one computer running folding@home, do a lot of distro hopping on one of my desktops, and I have my file server for accessing data when not at home.

Along with me there are 5 other people living in my house, although they don't use as much as me they do also use netflix and all of them also have folding@home on their computers. As soon as we heard about this I put network monitors on all of our computers, just with computers we go over, not including netflix/psn/xbl/phones. We've started looking at other options, still haven't decided who to go with yet though.

[scrzbill]

03:16 PM on 04/01/2011

What does Sony and all these TV manufactures think about Att interfering with selling their Internet ready TVs.

[Gregory Firth]

02:40 AM on 03/30/2011

Here is a rant found on another site that seems relevant - its says ATT is protecting 200 channels of content that is so commercial ridden that ATT had to install a DVDR in every home as an antidote. I've shorten the rant a bit:

What I really dislike about these caps is that AT&T wants its customers tethered to 200 channels stuffed full of aggravating, demoralizing, and completely unwanted commercials...nothing is really worth watching anymore unless it's seen from a recorded show that can be fast forwarded during the commercial breaks.

This is what AT&T is protecting…Television content made worthless by endless commercials....

We are at the threshold of exchanging this tired (and tiresome), ultimately untenable video delivery system with a new model whereby we pay directly for what we want to watch. ...We do not need 500 channels full of content mangled by repetitious, idiotic, insulting advertising. What we do need is five to ten shows we like, some news programs, and the occasional movie without commercials.

I would pay for that. There are companies poised to provide content directly to viewers commercial free. We have (or had) an Internet that makes that possible. But there are obstacles.

First are large ISP's that act like robber barons. Second are the government agencies (FCC, Justice Department, Congress, President) that act like sheriffs on the take. Frankly, I can't tell if those agencies are clueless, gutless, or just plain owned by the corporations.
etc

[voxleo]

08:29 PM on 04/15/2011

I agree - as a DSL dry loop customer I pay for the highest tier available primarily to support my online viewing of shows via netflix or other streaming instead of cable and TV. I like the freedom of watching WHEN I WANT TO as opposed to the restricted availability of even broadcast shows. I don't need it to be HD, I just want my sci-fi fix or whatever. If I could I'd pay for even more speed via the fiber optic option but that is only available tethered to the TV package via U-verse (which also has a higher cap than the DSL) . The irony is that in order to maintain my freedom from such craptastic content services at the highest level of speed which I would want to support that, it appears that I am obligated to buy the damn craptastic content service anyway. Seems to me this is a net neutrality FAIL? This is precisely the type of preferential favoring of content that it was supposed to address, right?

[voxleo]

08:29 PM on 04/15/2011

I don't want all my eggs in one basket company- particularly in terms of communication and information gathering and the way I interact with the rest of the world. I was delighted that I could get DSL without the need to have ATT landline service for my home phone. Vonage offered me a better option for the money and it seemed silly to have to pay for both. But now I've a parallel situation with the TV services and I have really enjoyed the freedom from my cable bill and even broadcast tv for as long as I have had it. I am loathe to put on the chains again.

Ah, Progress! *sigh*

I weep for the future, if indeed we actually have one.

[RoguePath]

01:22 AM on 03/24/2011

Watchout for a big merger showing their power....Damn, wait...that already happened didn't it.

I'm getting rather uncomfortable watching a former monopoly power (AT&T), who was divided in the mid 80's for exactly this kind of untouchable thinking, repeating history.

Just because you don't like what a business does with your network, doesn't mean you get to limit anyone's ACCESS!! There are have been 3 seperate attempts in the past with an attempt at 5GB, 20GB and now 150GB/200GB caps that will completely stop all internet access. Imagine now, that this was Egypt. What would the problem be with a website that limited my net access after a revolt and I couldn't upload a video to tell news to my family, friends or the world because my "limitation" has been reached? Or I was the family and couldn't get any access until two weeks later. We are fast approaching the necessity of a open network and required infrastructure that approaches the level of a public utility. That or an amendment to the constitution to protect that right...

Follow your own path...

[Daniel Sanchez]

07:59 PM on 03/24/2011

I understand this a step in the wrong direction to have any data caps, but i can only comment of want they are doing now. I didn't read on the article that they will stop you at the data cap. That has not happen, and if they did I would be furious. I have the free will to play $10 for 50 more gb, after I pass 150 gb in dsl or 250 gb on uverse. Second will they warning me? The article says yes, three times without charge and progressivily as I go along will indicate my usage. Not prefect but I can understand it.

[RoguePath]

03:06 AM on 03/25/2011

You will always meet data caps. You would never imagine saying you can hit 250gb today, but in 1994 could you have imagined even saying 1GB. In less than 5 years, everyone will hit 1TB...

They are attacking a business that threatens their cable access (i.e. netflix) and don't consider it their obligation to upgrade it because they have no use for that much bandwith but we as a consumer do.

Whether they warn me or not isnt' the point, the cap shouldn't exist and threatens net nuetrailty at its very basic. Once you manipulate the internet to serve your company's needs over that of your competitor you are walking a fine line on the slippery slope to a monopoly..

[Daniel Sanchez]

08:26 PM on 03/22/2011

I would love to know if anyone here thinks they can surpass 150 GB on DSL or 250 GB on Uverse. That is roughly 20 movies (250 MB Movie) a day on DSL and 33 movies on Uverse. If that's the case I am glad that they charge you

[PC 3]

04:33 PM on 03/23/2011

Look at this screen shot directly from AT&T

http://i.imgur.com/fN2FN.png

[Bipartisanbs]

09:07 PM on 03/16/2011

Just started a group on facebook http://on.fb.me/eOPlNN Lets send a message that WE WILL NOT PAY MORE for internet.
Consumers Against Internet Capping

[gypsy508]

08:39 PM on 03/16/2011

Don't expect a fight from the TV media on this. That's their competition. Right now, anyone with a videocamera can set up a TV station on the net. In the future, more advanced shows will emerge and eventually news shows as well.

[Checkpoint Charlie]

03:29 PM on 03/16/2011

Way to advertise that your bandwith sucks

[mamacat]

03:14 PM on 03/16/2011

As retirees, we enjoy watching streaming movies. Not looking forward to having to pay premium prices.

[Daniel Sanchez]

08:17 PM on 03/22/2011

20 movies a day (250 mb for movie) or 5 GB a day in 30 day month equals 150 GB. Your watch more than 20 movies a day?

[RoguePath]

01:26 AM on 03/24/2011

Wow, I'm confused Daniel. did you forget to do your math right? Each movie is between 600 and 1.2 gb depending on quality. 250 is lowballing....and that is 20 movies a month maximum, not per day.

[Daniel Sanchez]

02:41 AM on 03/24/2011

The question is does this effect you? 150 or 250 gb a month, a warning system to curve your usage three months of unlimited usage, thereafter $10 bucks for each 50 gb, when you pass your cap. For me it doesn't. If it does affect you, what do you use your internet for and how long does it take you get to 150 gb? 250 gb. Are you sharing it with your neighbors?

[mugugaibu]

12:40 PM on 03/16/2011

This is the same nonsense that the communications companies are pulling in Canada. No wonder the North American communication industry is light years behind that seen over seas. There is no band width shortage, and these ISPs are paying pennies a gigabyte for data...

[usafan1]

09:57 AM on 03/16/2011

AT&T and Comcast are attempting to cripple and destroy companies like Netflix. In the news today, it was stated that Netflix has more than 60% of the online streaming movie business and the big telecommunications companies will not tolerate those numbers. "Without strong net neutrality rules, companies like Comcast can demand fees from innovative companies like Netflix in an attempt to choke consumer freedom and coerce users to adopt its own video services instead."CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS and tell them to support net neutrality and a free internet.

[mathme]

12:21 AM on 03/16/2011

From the article Beau B linked to earlier:
"By the end of 2012, South Korea intends to connect every home in the country to the Internet at one gigabit per second. That would be a tenfold increase from the already blazing national standard and more than 200 times as fast as the average household setup in the United States.

"A pilot gigabit project initiated by the government is under way, with 1,500 households in five South Korean cities wired. Each customer pays about 30,000 won a month, or less than $27. "