[Zwei]

If you're that hardcore to download over 250 GB a month, why not just pay the extra charge? Of course, you can cancel and go elsewhere, but I see other providers following suit eventually.

[Polk]

How much data does one 720p Netflix movie stream use? 1080p on the ps3?

I'd say around 2GB/hour if it still using less then 4000kbps bitrate.

[WickedAngel]

If you're that hardcore to download over 250 GB a month, why not just pay the extra charge? Of course, you can cancel and go elsewhere, but I see other providers following suit eventually.

1. You're missing the point.
2. Why should I have to pay more to use a service that, once active, costs them next to nothing to provide. Bandwidth isn't water or electricity; it is not a finite resource in the same way that other services are.
3. Most people do not have access to a variety of ISPs.

[Devolution]

If you're that hardcore to download over 250 GB a month, why not just pay the extra charge? Of course, you can cancel and go elsewhere, but I see other providers following suit eventually.

Most regional areas are lucky if there are 2-3 things to chose from. And both/all things suck, it's just a matter of which sucks less.

[Chichikov]

Meanwhile in Taiwan, you have 1GB internet for $30 a month. Why can't they do this in every major city worldwide...?

Would you please think of the children earning per share?
AT&T made over a billion in profits in Q4 2010, but since they made 2 billion in Q4 2009 this is now a catastrophe and they must control costs.

I said it before and I will say it again, the whole system is fucking broken.

[claviertekky]

Meanwhile in Taiwan, you have 1GB internet for $30 a month. Why can't they do this in every major city worldwide...?

Taiwan's really small.

Their cell phone plans are like $5-$10/month for domestic users. Receiving phone calls is free.

[Paprikka]

Small comfort that the overage charge is one of the cheaper ones I've seen.

So is there really no way to check how much you currently use? My family adores Netflix and I have a feeling this isn't going to be a very difficult cap to reach. It'd be nice to know in advance if we need to start looking about switching back to Time Warner.

[ClosingADoor]

Taiwan's really small.

I know, that's why I said "every major city". Why isn't that possible in New York, London or Berlin? I get why it isn't possible in Alaska or something.

[claviertekky]

I know, that's why I said "every major city". Why isn't that possible in New York, London or Berlin? I get why it isn't possible in Alaska or something.

Cell phone providers and Obama stated it as well in the State of the Union that they want to look at wireless broadband to put the US back as a leader in Internet services.

If you don't know about it already, there are caps on the wireless broadband end of things as well.

[WickedAngel]

Cell phone providers and Obama stated it as well in the State of the Union that they want to look at wireless broadband to put the US back as a leader in Internet services.

TelCos are well ahead of the curve so far as fucking us on wireless costs is concerned.

[Zwei]

1. You're missing the point. 2. Why should I have to pay more to use a service that, once active, costs them next to nothing to provide. Bandwidth isn't water or electricity; it is not a finite resource in the same way that other services are. 3. Most people do not have access to a variety of ISPs.

Well then, keep crying.

[WickedAngel]

Well then, keep crying.

Nice talking to you.

[BoboBrazil]

Small comfort that the overage charge is one of the cheaper ones I've seen. So is there really no way to check how much you currently use? My family adores Netflix and I have a feeling this isn't going to be a very difficult cap to reach. It'd be nice to know in advance if we need to start looking about switching back to Time Warner.

I just looked on Time Warner's website and they have 10Mbit internet for $29 per month and 30Mbit for $49.99 per month. I would switch if I were you. Actually looking at those prices I might switch from Fios.

[wienke]

I know, that's why I said "every major city". Why isn't that possible in New York, London or Berlin? I get why it isn't possible in Alaska or something.

It's possible users in major cities in the U.S. are subsidizing costs for users in more remote locations. This allows them to charge more or less universal rates to everyone.

[Copernicus]

Well fuck. So much for going with U-Verse instead of Comcast when I move.

Comcast has had a cap for a long time now too.

p.s. cant wait for googles free national network. It may cost me my soul, but at least it won't be out of pocket.

[(._.)]

Wonder how much I use. I game on average around 60 hours online ever two weeks and I use the internet for streaming video for probably an hour a day.

[Marty Chinn]

For those in the Bay Area (NorCal) and on ADSL, look at Sonic.net as an alternative if this matters to you. I know people who stick to AT&T because they usually bundle their internet services with their cell phone plans.

Son of a bitch, I'm getting u-verse installed on Monday and it was because of no caps. I didn't get comcast cuz of that reason. Damn I may cancel. Sonic.net unfortunately doesn't work for me since I'm right in the middle of two boxes so I'm near the peaks of each which limits my dsl at 3 to 4 Mbps. I was getting tired of that speed so I switched. Bleh.

[NoRéN]

I'd say around 2GB/hour if it still using less then 4000kbps bitrate.

No way! Really? I stream netflix about 5 hr/day...at least. :(

[Polk]

2. Why should I have to pay more to use a service that, once active, costs them next to nothing to provide. Bandwidth isn't water or electricity; it is not a finite resource in the same way that other services are.

But bandwidth is "finite". It costs ISP to transfer every bit through other ISP's pipes. Sure, if users would download the same amount of data as they upload it wouldn't be much problem, but that's impossible to achieve.
Plus you just ignored whole years worthy investments in the infrastructure and maintainable (and upgrade) costs.

[hateradio]

Taiwan's really small.

That may be true, but ATT has the profits and the power (a telecommunications company is it not?) to work on its infrastructure. ATT is simply relying on old copper wiring, on which U-Verse is being served and now capped. The only corporation we've heard doing something new is Verizon with it's FiOS network. Why can't others do so too? (Random note: It would be cruel for Verizon to offer 25/25 speeds and have a bandwidth cap. Get to your cap quickly!)

We don't want to end up like Canada.

Additionally, there were reports that Google wanted to offer 1Gb internet connections in test locations. Those connections will be in the US and available in the public someday. :]

[Makoto]

For those in the Bay Area (NorCal) and on ADSL, look at Sonic.net as an alternative if this matters to you.

Are you currently using it? If so, how is it?

[Zwei]

Nice talking to you.

No, I'm serious. If enough people make noise, there's a possibility of AT & T revoking this policy. I'm not one of them, of course. How anyone could download over 250 GB a month blows my mind.

[AndyD]

I switched to Comcast in October and I was worried about their 250gb cap.

So I watched my usage but did not change my behavior for a few months to see. I use 100-150GB so I am comfortably under. And that's between Netflix and virtually all PSN demos and stuff, Steam games, and regular use. So far this month I used 75gb.

I think 120 is low, but 250 is a reasonable amount for a home to use in a month.

[Polk]

No way! Really? I stream netflix about 5 hr/day...at least. :(

Ok, maybe little less. Last time I checked max bitrate was around 3800kbps, which would get you 1,7GB/hour if it would be constant bitrate.
For 1080p content they have to use higher bitrate, maybe around 5500kbps which means ~2.5GB/h

[claviertekky]

That may be true, but ATT has the profits and the power (a telecommunications company is it not?) to work on its infrastructure. ATT is simply relying on old copper wiring, on which U-Verse is being served and now capped. The only corporation we've heard doing something new is Verizon with it's FiOS network. Why can't others do so too? (Random note: It would be cruel for Verizon to offer 25/25 speeds and have a bandwidth cap. Get to your cap quickly!) We don't want to end up like Canada. Additionally, there were reports that Google wanted to offer 1Gb internet connections in test locations. Those connections will be in the US and available in the public someday.

How are you going to convince from an investor standpoint that doing for the good of the internet community is better rather than looking bad in your quarter earning reports?

I wouldn't be surprised later if Verizon decides to instill a similar cap for FiOS in the near future. Also, FiOS deployment has been halted for an year now as Verizon is still waiting a return on their initial development and consumer saturation.

Verizon LTE has a cap of 5GB a month already.

[Vilix]

As someone mentioned before more programs will become available in HD, technology allows for programs to be streamed through the Internet, and more people start playing online, household will need more and more bandwidth in the coming years.

[Cloudy]

What's really unfair is that the other 98% of users spend $50/month to get maybe half a gig worth of Facebooking done. These bastards wants to have their cake and eat it, too. Overcharge the masses for the paltry bandwidth they use and then gouge the minority that pays for and expects to use 10/20/30Mb down.

Exactly. If you're gonna have a cap, why not have those who use very little pay for just what they use?

[Paprikka]

I just looked on Time Warner's website and they have 10Mbit internet for $29 per month and 30Mbit for $49.99 per month. I would switch if I were you. Actually looking at those prices I might switch from Fios.

Yeah, the only reason I switched was the package deal AT&T had at the time for all three utilities was cheaper than splitting between two companies, but that might not be the case anymore with this change. Guess I'll have to look into it and see, especially if that package deal price isn't going to last much longer.

[Polk]

Verizon LTE has a cap of 5GB a month already.

But that's wireless internet, not wired.

[claviertekky]

But that's wireless internet, not wired.

My point is Verizon already caps on one of its services.

[BoboBrazil]

Yeah, the only reason I switched was the package deal AT&T had at the time for all three utilities was cheaper than splitting between two companies, but that might not be the case anymore with this change. Guess I'll have to look into it and see, especially if that package deal price isn't going to last much longer.

Time Warner has all 3(tv, phone, internet) for $99 and 6 months of free dvr.

[Karud]

I really hope EU ISPs don't copy that shitty nonsense...

[claviertekky]

Time Warner has all 3(tv, phone, internet) for $99 and 6 months of free dvr.

$99+ monthly HD Box rental fee + taxes (phone and TV) + price hike after one year.

[AndyD]

Exactly. If you're gonna have a cap, why not have those who use very little pay for just what they use?

Someone said that the other day. I think it was an ars article by a CEO who said that is the future. Speed to become huge and irrelevant and pay per total use.

So you could sign up for $20 for 50GB and $5 extra per 10GB or something gradual like that. Or sign up for $50 for 250GB or $80 for unlimited. Several tiers of usage rather than tiers of speed. Or a combination. Low package can be 5mbps and 50GB total, or 20mbps and 250gb, or 50mbps and unlimited usage.

[Tobor]

I watch a lot of streaming Netflix and Hulu + every month, and i've never heard a peep from Comcast about going over. 250GB has been fine for me for a while.

[NoRéN]

Ok, maybe little less. Last time I checked max bitrate was around 3800kbps, which would get you 1,7GB/hour if it would be constant bitrate. For 1080p content they have to use higher bitrate, maybe around 5500kbps which means ~2.5GB/h

And my only other option here is Charter with their "29.99 for six moths and you pay installation". Then it goes up to 59.99.

I watch a lot of streaming Netflix and Hulu + every month, and i've never heard a peep from Comcast about going over. 250GB has been fine for me for a while.

How much is alot? For reference, of course.

[Burger]

The "640K ought to be enough for anybody." argument. Technology doesn't work like that and new technologies aren't innovated with that attitude.

I wasn't talking about tomorrow, but for today I can't imagine anyone on a residential internet plan needing more than 250 Gigs per month. Clearly I'm not saying that it's enough forever.

That's over 8 gigs per day, you would have to basically be a shut in to use that.

Oh and hey Kraftwerk, quoting peoples avatars is not smart, or clever, or adds anything to the discussion. If you want to call somebody an idiot, or make some clever counterpoint, don't be a fucking pussy about it.

[hateradio]

How are you going to convince from an investor standpoint that doing for the good of the internet community is better rather than looking bad in your quarter earning reports? I wouldn't be surprised later if Verizon decides to instill a similar cap for FiOS in the near future. Also, FiOS deployment has been halted for an year now as Verizon is still waiting a return on their initial development and consumer saturation. Verizon LTE has a cap of 5GB a month already.

I wouldn't want to convince them, seems like their mind is made. Hopefully, the competition and complaints will eventually make change. And let's not talk about wireless caps, that's just a dry well of hopelessness.

The price for FiOS is steep. I don't think it would bode well if it were capped. "Get to your monthly cap faster!" Doesn't really inspire me to switch. Unless it were a terabyte cap no one would care, at least for now.

[Used-ID]

I'm going to have tell AT&T to go screw themselves.

Also, are these caps 1-way (aka down only) or total in both directions (up and down)?

I like how they plaster their shit commercials everywhere, and now that people are actually starting to use their 'high-speed' (3Mbps down 128kbps up for AT&T) connections to pull down those videos and stream that music like in the commercials AT&T has now decided to charge you extra for trying to be like those hipsters in the commercials.

I may have to start using my grandfathered truly unlimited AT&T cellphone-network data plan to do the 'heavy lifting' that AT&T's ADSL network can't handle.

At least our government is asleep at the wheel - hell they'll probably soon knee-cap the FCC to allow even more of this shit.

[claviertekky]

I wouldn't want to convince them, seems like their mind is made. Hopefully, the competition and complaints will eventually make change. And let's not talk about wireless caps, that's just a dry well of hopelessness. The price for FiOS is steep. I don't think it would bode well if it were capped. "Get to your monthly cap faster!" Doesn't really inspire me to switch, unless it was like terabyte cap. Then who cares, at least for now.

This is going off topic as we're discussing Verizon here.

In some areas that Verizon serves both ADSL and FiOS, there are reports that Verizon is sending letters to ADSL customers to tell them to switch as ADSL will no longer be offered.

Simply put, Verizon doesn't want to support its aging copper infrastructure even it may be a cheaper option for those who don't need the bandwidth.

As for cable companies, they are price gouging for what they provide from a shared bandwidth line.

[Purkake4]

Receiving phone calls is free.

Haha, welcome to the rest of the world...

[Tobor]

And my only other option here is Charter with their "29.99 for six moths and you pay installation". Then it goes up to 59.99. How much is alot? For reference, of course.

4 hours a day, 5 days a week if you averaged it out. Kind of embarrassing when I think about it. Lol.

[claviertekky]

Haha, welcome to the rest of the world...

Yeah the first time I heard that, man, I fully realized how much American wireless companies are forcing their customers to bend over and take in the shitty pricing schemes.

[disappeared]

I wasn't talking about tomorrow, but for today I can't imagine anyone on a residential internet plan needing more than 250 Gigs per month. Clearly I'm not saying that it's enough forever. That's over 8 gigs per day, you would have to basically be a shut in to use that.

This is true.

I'm not a fan of capping bandwidth, period, but a 250GB cap does offer breathing room at the very least.

[CrankyJay]

Just curious...say I watch 4-6 movies a month on Netflix streaming + maybe some pandora and GAF every day? How many GB is that? Best guesstimate.

[BoboBrazil]

$99+ monthly HD Box rental fee + taxes (phone and TV) + price hike after one year.

Well actually hd is free. Every box is hd with them now I believe. The price hike never happens, because they are always running this special and you can just resign up for it again. Taxes are unavoidable on any provider. I'm no fan of Time Warner, but fair is fair. I'm sure atleast they would give me a wireless n router unlike Verizon who won't replace the G one I have that is 3 years old.

[Ceebs]

This is true. I'm not a fan of capping bandwidth, period, but a 250GB cap does offer breathing room at the very least.

Except that is just for U-Verse. Those of us using their basic DSL are stuck with a 150GB cap. That seems very easy to hit with basic streaming video use.

[From The Dust]

I won't have a problem like 98% of people, but I am against caps due to principle. unfortunetly, in Georgia, it's AT&T or Comcast. pick your poison, die a painful death

[Zombie James]

That's pretty generous compared to what people in other countries gets, but it's part of a really bad trend that needs to stop.

[WickedAngel]

But bandwidth is "finite". It costs ISP to transfer every bit through other ISP's pipes. Sure, if users would download the same amount of data as they upload it wouldn't be much problem, but that's impossible to achieve. Plus you just ignored whole years worthy investments in the infrastructure and maintainable (and upgrade) costs.

The "finite" nature of bandwidth is only a problem if you've drastically oversold your service. I would like to see whatever data you're pulling from that would suggest the cost of servicing that 2% is anything but negligible in the face of marketing, retention, maintenance, and customer service (All of which would exist regardless of that 2% being present or not). Peak-time traffic is likely to see congestion no matter what that 2% is doing and the solution to that is a cost of doing business.

Additional bits along the pipe, on a macro level, will not result in higher costs that anyone would notice. That hardware is going to be used and those connections will need to be maintained regardless of what that 2% is doing.

I wasn't talking about tomorrow, but for today I can't imagine anyone on a residential internet plan needing more than 250 Gigs per month. Clearly I'm not saying that it's enough forever. That's over 8 gigs per day, you would have to basically be a shut in to use that. Oh and hey Kraftwerk, quoting peoples avatars is not smart, or clever, or adds anything to the discussion. If you want to call somebody an idiot, or make some clever counterpoint, don't be a fucking pussy about it.

A "heavy" user today is a "normal" user in a couple of years based on conservative estimates of Internet usage by companies like Cisco.