Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » AT&T strikes again (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: AT&T strikes again
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-17-2011 12:39 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
AT&T is up to no good again. Normally I would post things like this in the news thread, but this deserves its own discussion.

Link to story

quote:
The Secretly Horrifying Implications of AT&Ts Bandwidth Caps

* By: Robert Brockway
* March 16th, 2011
* 196,371 views

As is inevitably the case for all things, it turns out that Prince was right: The internet is over. AT&T recently announced the rollout of bandwidth caps, not just for their mobile network, but for residential DSL customers as well. The announcement is here, with more details here. They've not only already implemented this system in several test markets, but were apparently pleased enough about the results to go ahead with the program nationwide. Human beings were willing to take all this fuckery lying down, and so now it's official.

Those "human being" bastards are always screwing the rest of us over.

I know what you're doing right now. You're trying to comfort yourself. "Sure, that sucks" you're thinking, "but that 150GB cap is pretty high; I'll probably never run into it myself." And you're right, for now at least. Of course their introductory cap is going to start out on the high side. They need to give you time to get used to the concept without really suffering the consequences. But soon it will be lowered, and lowered again. Anybody familiar with college romance recognizes this as the "just the tip" strategy: Wherein the fucker promises the fuckee that, should they find the end of the penis unsatisfactory in some way, the process can always be stopped and the whole thing pulled out. But, much like their frat-bro counterparts, I guarantee you that AT&T has no intention of pulling out. They are going to plunge it into us to the hilt, and if we're lucky, maybe they'll whisper gently into our ears about what good girls we're being for taking it all so bravely.

And there they will be, their blurry forms pumping away at us even as the shame starts creeping in.

Right now, if those stats are accurate, the bandwidth cap will only apply to the top 2% of users. Those are the only people who are going to be charged on this new pricing plan. Have you ever known a company content to only make money off of the top 2% of their users? And even if AT&T is somehow perfectly happy with this tiny slice of the potential market, what's going to happen? That top two percent will then be more aware of their data usage, right? That means their average rate will go down, therefore the cap will go down - but that price will probably stay just the same. Even if this is baseless fear-mongering and AT&T's caps don't decrease, the internet will always require more bandwidth as it grows in functionality. The highest end of the caps they're rolling out today will be absolutely stifling a few years from now.

Any time there's a new way to charge for a service, you know others offering that service are going to follow suit. Comcast has had a secret 250GB bandwidth cap in place for years. Now they have an excuse to publicize and lower it. Which means we'll be dealing with an internet operating under bandwidth restrictions very soon, and that's going to be a very different thing than it is now: It will be a place where you buy a game on Steam one week, so you can't watch internet porn for the rest of the month. You'll just have to suck it up and content yourself with masturbating to erotic twitter-feeds, or else scrolling rapidly up and down pages of ASCII art so it kind of looks like Jessica Rabbit deepthroating if you squint hard enough through the tears.

PROTIP: Crying actually helps, as the watery blurriness lends a semblance of softness to the 3s making up her hair.

You'll have to start keeping a mental tab of your friends' Internet habits -- who is usually through their bandwidth by what point in the month - and carefully decide who you share content with. Why bother sending Jim that video of a cat sledding down the stairs on the back of an unconscious toddler? You know that bastard loves his Call of Duty; he's always burnt through all of his data by the first Thursday of every month. Guess he'll just have to wait until August to get all the new meme references. They'll still totally be funny by then, right?

But at least AT&T is making sure nobody's going to be caught off guard when they reach their cap: Users will be sent warnings at 65 percent, 90 percent and again at 100 percent of their allotted data. But warnings aren't going to be enough -- you'll know when you're going over, sure, but not how much each item is costing you, and whether or not it's worth it. When bandwidth is a finite resource, websites will have to roll out info-warnings in their links, like fast food menus.

But these are all just inconveniences so far. One of the major fears is that stifling broadband caps will strangle the online economy, which is the only one even sort of working these days. That's probably not the case, however: Website designers will have a veritable boom phase as companies scramble to reduce their bandwidth footprint, while the more thorough designers can just straight up retire -- all they have to do is comb through their archives and sell companies back their own website code from 1997.

My God, it's already begun ...

Physical media will come roaring back from the brink of destruction. Record, game, and maybe even book stores will come back into play in a world where everybody's watching their data usage. Far from hurting our economy, bandwidth caps might actually be the move that drags us out of this recession. Think about it: Economically speaking, we were doing pretty good back in the late-90s. It might be a blessing that we're about to bent over and humped all the way back there.

Even we comedy writers stand to benefit from data restrictions: No longer will we have to do the arguably marginal "real work" that we put into articles like this today. As long as we make sure all of our sources hotlink to PDFs of heavily illustrated books -- oh, the extravagant lies we could tell! It's a whole different game when internet pedants have to measure out exactly how much nitpicking is worth in real dollars.

Oh, but that's assuming we'll still have jobs, which is doubtful, since free content on the internet will be the first thing to go. Who's going to tolerate bullshit ads when you have to pay for the very data needed to download them? If we do survive, it'll likely be on a pay-to-view system. If you can't afford it, don't worry: There will probably be an entire black market of bootleg internet trivia thriving in shady Chinatown alleyways where skinny men with bad teeth hock printouts of the 7 Farts That Changed History -- because what else are you going to do? Go outside? Talk to your family?

Thanks, stock photos! This looks totally natural.

They'll have to kick out all the head shops and hobo villages currently nesting in the ruins of old Blockbuster stores once Netflix and Hulu collapse. And they will collapse: One proponent of the new plan actually argues that the caps aren't so bad because, even with the high-end limits in place, you could still stream up to one HD movie a day before you run out of bandwidth. One whole movie! Per day! Of course, that also means you'll have to decide between Netflix, pornography, gaming, and regular internet usage ...

Oh god, the gaming!

Online gaming is already set to take a good, solid kick to the beanbags with the dissolution of data-intensive services like DLC, Steam, and on-demand consoles like OnLive. But the virtual sack-thwacking will only get worse from there: Multiplayer games have to track every bullet, every jump, every throat-shattering cry of "fagg0tzz!" that occurs during gameplay, which makes them absolute bandwidth monsters. Anybody using a connection with a bandwidth cap is going to have cut way, way down on their online play, or else the games themselves will have to fundamentally change. Graphics for at least the online content of games will be thrown all the way back to the "-bit" era, or maybe even to the fabled "imagination" era. Luckily, we old-school nerds know what that means: The re-launch of the MUD.

Speaking of text-based gaming, that brings up a pretty good general strategy for dealing with the bandwidth capped future: Rediscover the joys of imagination. And you should probably start soon - the more practice you get in now, the less you'll feel the sting when the caps come crashing down and we're no longer spoiled by streaming reels of infinite high-def media spooling out before us. Imagination is about to make a big comeback, because pretty soon here, graphics have to start mattering less to online gamers, text is going to be your primary internet media, and friend, listen close, because this is important: You need to get in some practice picturing sci-fi starlets naked right now. It is a skill that I fear has atrophied in the nerds, and the loss of bandwidth is going to leave a hole in their libido that Playboy cannot fill. For everybody else, well, get thyself to porn-hounding and start filing away whatever you can't download into your mental masturbatory vault. With a little imagination and a well-stocked vault, you might just make it through this mess. If you need help, just remember the words of LeVar Burton:



 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-17-2011 03:09 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, there goes any hope for Blu-ray and DVD to be replaced with streaming videos for rent. Physical media will be with us forever with this kind of BS in place. But I suspect this will not be met well by the general public, especially the gaming side. And gaming is a bigger business than movies, folks.

Sounds like the clouds are falling, too.

The only thing that puts me off is that this is from Cracked.com. Cracked is a former humor magazine which competed with Mad and they are now a humor website, so I'll take it with a grain of salt for now.

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 03-17-2011 12:16 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
Comcast has had bandwidth caps since 2008.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-17-2011 12:51 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Click the links in the article, Joe.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-17-2011 04:32 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Adam Martin
Comcast has had bandwidth caps since 2008.
I am a Comcast customer and I've never been informed of any bandwidth caps. And I download a crapton.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-17-2011 05:22 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You guys are talking like this is something permanent. If there is a big outcry, changes will happen.

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 03-18-2011 02:18 AM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Comcast
Announcement Regarding An Amendment to Our Acceptable Use Policy

We've listened to feedback from our customers who asked that we provide a specific threshold for data usage and this would help them understand the amount of usage that would qualify as excessive. Today, we're announcing that beginning on October 1, 2008, we will amend our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) available at http://www.comcast.com/policies and establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB/month per account for all residential customers.

Most major ISPs are capping or have proposed caps for residential broadband bandwidth in one way or another, in some cases varying the caps depending on the service purchased.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 03-18-2011 12:05 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I can't help but wonder if these bandwidth caps have something to do with preserving the traditional business model of cable/broadcast television.

More and more people I know are searching for ways to cut costs in response to rising prices of food, fuel and many other things. A real obvious target is cable TV. Many subscribers are paying upwards of $100 per month or more for cable/satellite TV service. I'm currently paying around $60 per month for a fairly basic Dish Network package (Top 120, HBO, free Platinum HD & Starz channels for a year). Someone can pay $20-$30 per month for Netflix & Hulu Plus. People who really know how to use torrents well don't pay anything at all, but I think that's a pretty small part of the population.

A migration of cable customers to Netflix takes money out of cable and broadcasting companies two ways. The monthly subscription revenue is lost with streaming services getting some of that money and customers keeping the savings. The cable and broadcast companies also lose out in advertising revenue. If people aren't watching TV in a traditional manner TV program ratings fall and it hurts the business of selling commercials. Never mind the fact lots of people watch TV shows by first recording them to DVRs so they can fast forward past the commercials.

I see these bandwidth caps as a negative thing to the overall economy. The media/entertainment business is only one of many industries in the United States. It serves the greater good to steadily increase the speed of the Internet and not impose draconian bandwidth caps. Throttling connections and limiting downloads will hurt this country's ability to compete with others. The United States is already lagging way behind several industrialized nations in terms of Internet speed and bandwidth available to computers and mobile phones. And now companies like AT&T want to make that disadvantage even worse.

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 03-20-2011 03:29 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
People who really know how to use torrents well don't pay anything at all, but I think that's a pretty small part of the population.
And trying to deal with them by throttling bandwidth is a double-edged sword. Going down the legal route is a recipe for bad publicity. One of our biggest broadband providers, BT, recently found themselves on the receiving end of a PR disaster after they tipped off the police who smashed in the door of an elderly couple at 6am and arrested them for copyright theft; it turned out that the teenager next door had been downloading torrents through his neighbour's unsecured wifi router. However much techno-literate people such as those on this forum might conclude that it served them right, the majority of the population wouldn't agree with us; and so if ISPs can limit the distribution of bootleg content by limiting the bandwidth used to distribute it, then from their point of view that's probably a preferable option from being associated with a front page story about the bogies carting some granny off to the cells in handcuffs at 6am. The problem is this approach also limits legal and paid-for content downloading as well; and companies selling film and TV content online are not going to like this move by AT & T, I'd have thought.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I see these bandwidth caps as a negative thing to the overall economy. The media/entertainment business is only one of many industries in the United States.
True, but it's the only one I can think of that is in the business of selling large quantities of data (as in, several GB at time) to residential consumers through their broadband connections. I can't think of any other online product or service sold to consumers that involves those quantities of data. It'll be interesting to see if consumer ISPs come under pressure from the entertainment industry to abandon these bandwidth caps (or alternatively, exempt their content from them as part of a separate deal), or whether they'll just revert to physical media again if needs be; which of course Netflix could do very easily, because it still has that discs-through-the-mail infrastructure.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-20-2011 04:27 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Leo Enticknap
However much techno-literate people such as those on this forum might conclude that it served them right
I don't think anyone on this forum would think it served them right. You have the wrong impression of us here at Film-Tech. We fight for justice and the American way... even if that is an oxymoron.

As for Comcast being 250GB per month, I'll go on record and say that Jen streams a ton of stuff from Netflix, including many HD TV series. I wouldn't be surprised if we easily went over the cap on Netflix and Hulu alone. Comcast has never once bitched about it. Hell, they raised my bandwidth to about 22mbps down and I think 8mbps up without me asking or increasing my price.

 |  IP: Logged

Jake Spell
Master Film Handler

Posts: 294
From: Johns Island SC
Registered: May 2009


 - posted 03-20-2011 05:15 PM      Profile for Jake Spell   Email Jake Spell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Iv had Comcast for a few years and am myself a gamer and heavy watcher of online content as well as streaming music and watching downloaded content on Direct TV and have never gotten any extra charges for usage

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-20-2011 06:37 PM      Profile for Ian Price   Email Ian Price   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
AT&T also announced that they are buying T-Mobile for $39b from Deutsche Telekom.

I don't want to be an AT&T customer. Perhaps this will be a way out of my 2-year contract for smart phones that when you add it all up are quite expensive.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 03-20-2011 10:11 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Leo Enticknap
True, but it's the only one I can think of that is in the business of selling large quantities of data (as in, several GB at time) to residential consumers through their broadband connections.
With the type of bandwidth cap AT&T is proposing (150GB per month) I can see a lot of different kinds of business being affected. Take the growing trend of "telecommuting" for instance. People work at home to save on the rising costs of commuting and the company saves money on office space. Most telecommuting arrangements need serious bandwidth for sharing data and video for each employee.

More businesses are sending and receiving serious amounts of data. Some of it is data between customers or video. A business will use a lot of bandwidth by using the Internet to back up important data off site.

Computer software companies may be affected by bandwidth caps. They're trying hard to move customers toward buying software "from the cloud" rather than buying packaged media. If I have a 150GB cap on my DSL connection I'm going to burn up a serious chunk of that by purchasing an Adobe Creative Suite upgrade or even just a couple video games. Anyone with a Netflix subscription could go over a 150GB limit pretty easily.

quote: Ian Price
I don't want to be an AT&T customer. Perhaps this will be a way out of my 2-year contract for smart phones that when you add it all up are quite expensive.
With AT&T, Verizon and Sprint set to be the only major providers left it probably won't make too much of a difference where a mobile phone customer goes. Prices are going to be pretty high and perhaps even higher no matter what.

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 03-20-2011 11:49 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
The caps we are talking about are for residential accounts, not business accounts.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-21-2011 01:40 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, that's what "telecommuting" means.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.