What is Digg?148 Comments
- imakeholesinu, on 09/10/2008, -5/+79We've all just been Comcasted.
Get ready to deal with my credit card company AT&T. It is time to charge back for services not rendered if you do this. - inactive, on 09/10/2008, -3/+47Dugg for the picture, hahaha!
- ExRe, on 09/11/2008, -5/+41Blown way out of proportion, as usual. This is a QoS system, not a cap in any way. All they are doing is overselling the bandwidth on lines with uverse.
"In order to provide a consistently high-quality video service, AT&T Uverse High Speed Internet throughput speeds may be temporarily reduced when a customer is using other U-verse services in a manner that requires high bandwidth. This could occur more often with higher speed Internet access products. It may be necessary, for some AT&T High Speed Internet users, for AT&T to set a maximum downstream speed on a customer line to enhance the reliability and consistency of performance." - jeffvvisoft, on 09/12/2008, -2/+36That's just Comcastic.
- Filter, on 09/12/2008, -2/+34I switched to AT&T to get away from the Comcast crap! ARGHHH!!
- smoothmann, on 09/12/2008, -0/+29Bring FiOS to my area and I will.........
- kimbermatic, on 09/11/2008, -1/+29I had AT&T out to install Uverse last month. When the installer saw my setup at home and I told him about the performance I was expecting he told me he wouldn't complete the install. I give the guy credit as he saw what the signal to the house would be and knew he would be out every day with me complaining.
He also indicated that AT&T has oversold the whole Uverse and bandwidth issue is huge issue for the techs and installers. - vtnerd, on 09/12/2008, -0/+23Just wait. Verizon will see the lack of outrage from Comcast and others pulling this crap and they'll do it too.
I still plan to switch to FIOS as soon as possible though. - d03boy, on 09/12/2008, -0/+13fios is available in... about 2% of the country. ...
- nightmar3, on 09/11/2008, -2/+14Well good thing I have Verizon Fios so I don't have to worry about this stuff
- btschul, on 09/12/2008, -4/+14Then don't vote for Obama/Biden. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html http://gizmodo.com/5041044/vp-candidate-biden-is-n
- lesty420, on 09/11/2008, -9/+19We need net neutrality!
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -3/+12Not that what I'm saying hasn't been said already ,but I just want to reiterate.
You guys realize that they are doing this to protect their cable TV business right? Because in about 5-10 years or so, you'll likely be able to stream HD quality video with ease, and then what is the point of paying for cable if you can get it free online!??
The solution: restrict the bandwidth early, and blame it on, well, the bandwidth. Sure, it only effects (supposedly) 1% of users now, but in 5-10 years, it will be closer to 80%. Now you might counter by saying that AT&T doesn't even offer TV. BUT WAIT! What's this? They've just started to offer their own television now? Calling it At&t uverse? How convenient...
Wise up. DO NOT keep using these ***** companies, switch! - youareretarded, on 09/12/2008, -3/+11Here because you are an idiot:
"In order to provide a consistently high-quality video service, AT&T Uverse High Speed Internet throughput speeds may be temporarily reduced when a customer is using other U-verse services in a manner that requires high bandwidth. This could occur more often with higher speed Internet access products. It may be necessary, for some AT&T High Speed Internet users, for AT&T to set a maximum downstream speed on a customer line to enhance the reliability and consistency of performance. While this performance optimization process will prevent some customers from obtaining the maximum downstream speed capability, service capability speed will not be set lower than the service tier you have purchased."
And I'll quote again because you are a moron and are only capable of reading headlines and are not capable of fact checking for yourself,
"service capability speed will not be set lower than the service tier you have purchased" - mfc5200, on 09/12/2008, -0/+7AT&T said:
"AT&T to set a maximum downstream speed on a customer line to enhance the reliability and consistency of performance."
I totally agree, 100%. I pay for 6.0mbps DSL. I totally agree when they want to cap my DSL at that speed. I am also in favor of monthly bandwidth caps. In my case, if I used more than (6*60*60*24*30)=1.55*10^7 mb in any month, I would be ok with them cutting off my internet.
If you advertise 6.0 mbps, I expect that to be my speed, and I expect my cap to correspond to that speed being utilized non-stop for 1 month. Glad we are on the same page. - Rikkochet, on 09/12/2008, -0/+7That sounds like a great approach, but they don't really give a *****. If your account gets behind they'll just send you to collections and then you have an uphill battle to save your credit and get them to ***** off.
- bales, on 09/12/2008, -0/+7My internets are getting throttled? Thats Comcastic
- neodude237, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8Awesome... my ISP this time
- BoneStamp, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6You are a lucky one, most areas are not serviced yet.
- tnoy, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7*****. When FiOS gets a lot of users, they're going to do the exact same thing.
Just wait. - KaJuN4, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6If you don't like your Ford then buy a Chevy. If you don't like McDonald's then eat at Burger King. If you don't like your ISP then...oh *****! You're out of luck in many places.
- tnoy, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7***** AT&T.
- tavisjohn, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6So basically they are saying, "We are too cheap to update our infrastructure to make up for overselling our abilities. So you people who are paying more money for faster connections are going to be slowed the most to keep our network moving."
If any other service provider were to not provide what people paid for... They would get sued! - Wander, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6Buried for inaccurate title. Read the link. If you are watching U-Verse and you are downloading, your downloading will slow down so that you can continue to watch your tv service that comes through U-Verse. They aren't placing any caps, this is nothing but QOS and makes complete sense.
- starf, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5same here, but it's just a matter of time... :-(
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7I think they're already imposing it on me...
I pay for 6mbps and I've only been getting 1.5mbps. That's what I get for downloading the entire Bang Bus collection... - MacBookForMe, on 09/10/2008, -2/+7Imperium Strikes Back
- crapiolio, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4It's the other way around, SBC bought AT&T.
- WalkerTXclocker, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Clarification of "service capability speed will not be set lower than the service tier you have purchased."
Broadband access is provided in speed tiers of:
(1) 200 Kbps to 768 Kbps downstream (not available for AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet service),
(2) 769 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps downstream;
(3) 1.56 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps downstream;
(4) 3.1 Mbps to 6.0 Mbps downstream; and
(5) 6.1 Mbps to 10.0 Mbps (available only with AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet service)
(collectively Service Capability Speeds). - kingnothing1, on 09/11/2008, -4/+8A user of time warner, I'm still truckin' along pretty fine.
- BoneStamp, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6If you could get 4000 people to do a charge back on them, they'll pay attention pretty quickly as their charge back fees eclipse $100,000 and their lost revenue reaches at least the same. Of course, since they changed the TOS then it's a tough argument.
- jer2eydevil88, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5I know I'm in the top 4% of users that they are complaining about but I have Time Warner Business Class out in Southwest Ohio. I have a home business and I run basic web services from the house, if they cap my connection or try filtering it I will jump ship (at the same speed that Russia moves when it penetrates Georgia) for T1 or something ***** with.
- vtnerd, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5quick verizon, lay fiber in my neighborhood.
I would gladly pay the $65 for the 20up/20down. When I graduate from VA Tech I plan to move somewhere specifically based on the availability of FIOS (well it will be A factor not THE factor, but still). - inactive, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4As a Classical liberal and lover of liberty in general, the prospect of Net Neutrality troubles me. On one hand, it gives freedom to utilize the internet, but on the other, it allows the government to regulate the telecommunication industry. Net Neutrality should be required in the current system. We have a corporate, not capitalist system of telecommunications. Only those select companies are bestowed the right to lay down cable and sell it as they please. The current system eliminates competition when a ISP gives a mayor a campaign contribution in return for a monopoly more or less of an area. For this reason, Net Neutrality must be passed. If tax payer money is being spent on subsidizing ISPs to build fiber networks which they haven't done, then we do deserve uncensored, unmetered access to the internet.
- vtnerd, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4I keep calling Verizon to inquire as a way of showing interest in my neck of the woods, but I know it's not coming. I flat out told them when I stopped my DSL to go to Comcast (ugh) that I wouldn't be leaving them if FIOS was available.
The market where I live just sucks....tons of people here are still on dial-up. - gskill, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5So much for digital distribution.
- SIRBERUS, on 09/12/2008, -2/+5And it begins...
- Gev1982, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3Read the article--it is not like comcast. Still kinda sucks tho.
- tnoy, on 09/12/2008, -2/+5This has nothing to do with net neutrality.
- remccain, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3I live in Louisiana. I have 2 choices - AT&T or Cox Cable - and both are throttling bandwidth.
- KMartSheriff, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3Indeed, SBC bought AT&T. They kept the name because they felt more people would recognize AT&T instead of SBC.
- d03boy, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4thats how it already works tho...
- cdigioia, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3Your comment should be in in a thread of it's own, not hidden as a reply.
- tnoy, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3I did, and this is even worse than Comcast.
- djrbx, on 09/12/2008, -3/+6You people need to read the F'n article.. ATT will only cap your bandwidth if your downloading will effect your subscription of U-Verse. In other words, if your downloading too much while at the same time trying to enjoy the movies/shows/etc U-Verse offers, rather than having a slow stream and always having to deal with buffering nonsense, ATT will reallocate you bandwidth to default to U-Verse.
ATT will not cap it just because they feel like it, they cap it because there is a reason behind it. Unlike some other companies who cap there service just because it's the thing to do *crapcastic* - ousthouse, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3Geez.... that's a half step up from "series of tubes"
- understudy, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Where is your benevolent Google in all of this? You would think bandwidth-heavy content providers (e.g., YouTube/Google Video) would try to thwart these throttling initiatives. First comes BitTorrent traffic, then just general bandwidth.
When people start to be charged by the byte, traffic to bandwidth-heavy content providers will plummet, leading to a drop in their revenue; therefore, it is in their interest to take on the ISP's now.
_ - remccain, on 09/12/2008, -4/+7So when are you people going to finally wake up and start the revolution?
- chrisinsocalif, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3I wish i had Fios but I have Uverse. So far I am pleased with the service over Time Warner. It seems when there is a bandwidth crunch they will lower speeds to users with the faster connections accommodate all the traffic being produced, which means they need to update their infrastructure.
- Scrooged, on 09/12/2008, -5/+8I agree, but this story has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is