Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Trending News

Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Computers & InternetInternetOther - Internet · 1 decade ago

Anyone else mad about AT&T landline cap?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/222039/atandts_uver...

This is ridiculous.

I am a PC gamer, I download steam games, I watch hulu and netflix videos. This month alone I downloaded two 20 gb games from steam and will be downloading home front later on today. That not even including other members of my household. That any cap would be harmful to my usage.

They say 98 percent of user never get passed 16 gb. I say that is a lie! Everyone I know uses far more then that. Even for that 98% its still not a good deal because you will be paying the same price as a person using 250 GB a month.

Limiting inerient is a dangous idea. It could retard technology forcing people to create less web heavy apps like onlive and netflix. I think there should be more of an outrage. I thought net neutrality laws were suppose to prevent this sort of abuse from ISP's but apparently its now up to us to stop this. Everyone who buys from ATT web service should leave as soon as they can and write your congressmen. I know I will. FIO

Update:

ben these companies make absurd profits. You are only looking out for corporate interesting. You make it sound like using the internet properly, You know buying games and videos is somehow a bad thing. Paying for games plus paying for the bandwidth for that game is ridiculous. We need to move on from that anti consumer attude.

"Bandwidth doesn't just magically happen - they have to run cable and build towers and install switches and do all sorts of other big infrastructure upgrades that cost a lot of money. Somebody has to pay for it."

I know it doesn't but stop blaming the users. We demand more bandwidth we should get it. It does cost a lot of money they should upgrade there infrastructure but they shouldn't be retarding the internet by imposing caps. People are demanding more web heavy apps. Its not just people like me. Its everyone who wants more. They are making big profits there is no legitimate reason to put a cap.

Update 2:

"You could argue they're a form of public utility I suppose, but even the public utilities make money."

Well they pretty much are. Without the internet our economy would stop. Like power companies they should have to ask permission to raise prices. The thing is we already pay a lot for internet. You can pay for 3 mb connection or a 12 or 24 mb even more sometimes. They already charge us on speed now they want to charge us on data? What the point of charging for speed if you are going to pay more anyway. So basically made all this fiber optic networks useless.

Well If it wasn't profitable ben they wouldn't be around today. They are doing this for just purely greedy reasons.

downloading 50 to 100gb IS NOTHING. With itunes, netflix and hulu how can you expect people to not go over 100gbs? Multiple people using internet in one household will easily exceed 250 gb. You know what its the FUTURE. Let me repeat the future. They are retarding are future with this cap ben. I read your profi

Update 3:

"You could argue they're a form of public utility I suppose, but even the public utilities make money."

Well they pretty much are. Without the internet our economy would stop. Like power companies they should have to ask permission to raise prices. The thing is we already pay a lot for internet. You can pay for 3 mb connection or a 12 or 24 mb even more sometimes. They already charge us on speed now they want to charge us on data? What the point of charging for speed if you are going to pay more anyway. So basically made all this fiber optic networks useless.

Well If it wasn't profitable ben they wouldn't be around today. They are doing this for just purely greedy reasons.

downloading 50 to 100gb IS NOTHING. With itunes, netflix and hulu how can you expect people to not go over 100gbs? Multiple people using internet in one household will easily exceed 250 gb. You know what its the FUTURE. Let me repeat the future. They are retarding are future with this cap ben. I read your profi

Update 4:

btw ben right now I am downloading a steam game at 1.2 mb a sec. Don't you think its a good thing I buy games? Don't you think its a good thing useage is up and people are using new tech?

Update 5:

" McDonald's obligated to give you two orders of fries for the price of one "

You don't reduce the size of your French fries by half randomly because you are greedy. Its annoying and a middle finger to your consumers. I only for caps and stuff if they are endanger of going out of business. Remember this isn't McDonalds. WE use the internet everyday at least I do. I always watch a bunch a videos a day. TV is old news. You are so pro-corporate . Do you ever think of yourself? Oh maybe you are a share holder. If you are a share holder then yea you are going to be against regulations protecting consumers.

Update 6:

" Eventually, unless upgrades are made,"

What about this for a reasonable argument? They been making upgrades for years! Ever since they had there first customer.They done it before without data caps.

My argument don't sound reasonable if you are not thinking about the people. If you think making profits then raising prices just for the sake of making profits makes sense to you then of course my argument don't sound reasonable. They already charge people for internet. If you have a faster connection you have to pay more. People who have slower internet are logically going to use less anyway.

I guess the problem I have with you are calling a 100gb a massive amount of data. It really isn't now of days. You still have the mind set of the year 2000. All of our apps use heavy data. If anything they should be promoting unlimited plans. So you can use apps like netflix worry free.

" If your games and movies are important to you, "

So netflix isn't the future? Well I guess if you put

Update 7:

" Nobody owes you free fries."

I agree but I already pay monthly for netflix and other web apps. I just want the ROAD to be free to the McDonalds. Non-profit roads are a good thing. Imagine paying tolls for every road you use plus the payments in taxes. Or more like the government suddenly charging you overage fees for using the roads too much.

Update 8:

If you are part of the republican or democratic party you are a socialist. My only exception is people who have Ron Paul like views which are the super minatory

So don't even mention it like its a bad thing. Plus its not really socialism anyway. Socialism is advocating people own the means of production. I am just advocating sticker regulations on cyber roads.

Update 9:

"For now you may just have to get used to paying for the bandwidth you use."

Or donate a large sum to anymouns and point them to the real enemy pro corporatist and att.

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's funny because AT&T invested into OnLive

    Source(s): http://onlivefans.com/
  • Ben Schorr
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Well, guess what...you (and "everyone you know") are the reason they have to do it. Bandwidth doesn't just magically happen - they have to run cable and build towers and install switches and do all sorts of other big infrastructure upgrades that cost a lot of money. Somebody has to pay for it.

    And now with NetFlix and Hulu and everybody installing puppy cams and XBox Live and iPads and VOIP phones and "to the cloud!" ...and...and... every dog and toaster is Internet connected and that sucks up a LOT of bandwidth. It's a finite resource so their only options are to make people who are extremely heavy users pay more so that the ISPs can afford to lay more cable and buy more switches and hire more engineers and...and...and...

    Otherwise you'll just be in here next month complaining about how slow your Internet is because everybody you know is sucking down 50-100GB+ a month of data and the pipes aren't getting any bigger.

    ----------

    What it boils down to is you want more bandwidth but you don't want to pay for it. If you walked into McDonald's and said you demand twice as many french fries do you think you should have to pay for the second order of fries? Or should McDonald's have to give them to you for free just because they "make absurd profits".

    Now you can argue the morality of companies making profits but ultimately that's what they do. AT&T isn't a charity. Their not a non-profit organization. You could argue they're a form of public utility I suppose, but even the public utilities make money.

    In the history of society there have been companies that have had to spend money to increase their capacity. They have to hire more cooks, or build more factories, or plant more crops or install more ATM machines or whatever it is that they do. And in almost every case the cost of that expansion of capacity has been passed along, at least in part, in one way or another, to the consumer. Now AT&T is faced with having to upgrade and add capacity to their network in order to accomodate our (especially your) insatiable appetite for bandwidth.

    If you want to download massive amounts of data you still can. AT&T is just asking that you pay for it. The "caps" aren't limits on how much you can download. They're limits on how much you can download without paying extra.

    If you're not happy with the service you get from AT&T for the price that they charge then use somebody else's service. If it's as profitable as you say then surely there will be plenty of competitors in the market.

    ------

    It's not their responsibility to provide "the future" for free. Again, you didn't answer the question, is McDonald's obligated to give you two orders of fries for the price of one just because you demand it and they make "absurd" amounts of money? AT&T is a private company with a product that they sell. They're not obligated to provide you with music and movies for free.

    You currently pay them for a service and they deliver that service. You're using more and more bandwidth (eating more and more fries) but you're not willing to pay for more and more bandwidth. Eventually, unless upgrades are made, the whole thing will slow to a crawl as all of your friends and neighbors pile on and start downloading the way you do.

    Now you can sit there and claim that AT&T some how owes it to you to upgrade their network and give you more bandwidth for no extra charge, but unless there is a compelling business case for it (like they have a competitor who is applying downward market pressure) there is no reason for them to do that.

    They aren't "retarding the future" they're just retarding your ability to play games and watch movies. With all due respect, that's not the future. If your games and movies are important to you, then you'll either have to find a way to download them in less bandwidth or pay for the bandwidth you're using. Nobody owes you free fries.

    That said your public utility argument is the most reasonable thing you've said, but it's a LONG road to get something like that approved and then you're moving dangerously close to socialism. Once you start nationalizing industries because you think they're essential where does it stop?

    For now you may just have to get used to paying for the bandwidth you use.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.