"Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5/12/2011 5:35 AM, crkeehn wrote:
>> "Dillon Pyron"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> .>
>>> As in a heavy (well, not real "heavy" these days) user of Netflix?
>>> Yeah, I can see someone tapping out.
>>>
>>> Oddly, though, TW, AT&T, Comcast, blah blah blah all want us to use
>>> "their" services to stream this video, etc.
>>>
>>> I can kind of understand why AT&T is doing this. While their network
>>> "could" be capable of handling more traffic, their design is based
>>> more on a POTS model, which gets them into some real trouble if
>>> everybody decides to watch the Victoria's Secrets ad (cleverly
>>> masquarading as a TV show) on one set while the women folk are
>>> watching something else on another. Add Junior trying to look at the
>>> Vicky's online catalog at the same time and the network goes directly
>>> to hell.
>>>
>>> AT&T has some good engineers being driven by bad management. I was at
>>> SBC (Southwestern Bell, aka "the Baby Bell that ate America") as a
>>> security consultant and got to watch the start of the trainwreck,
>>> including some good engineers jumping off. Well, at least they got
>>> the security part right. For 2001, that is.
>>> --
>>>
>>> - dillon I am not invalid
>>>
>>> bin Laden thought of himself as a holy man. I guess
>>> SEALs can't ***** because they made him a holey man.
>>>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
>> records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
>> don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
>> their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>
> Is their some reason why you have not changed your service provider?
> I've used Bell Atlantic Mobile ---> Verizon Wireless for about the last
> fifteen years. I don't recall being anywhere that had no cellular
> service. I accept that there probably are areas without service but I
> have yet to encounter one!
>
> If you have a friend who has Verizon Wireless, ask him to help you test
> the service in your area. Test at your home, where you work, the route
> from home to work, and any other locations where you feel that you MUST
> have coverage. If the results are unsatisfactory, you might
> want to test AT&T's coverage in the critical areas.
>
> One other thing you might want to check is whether the service is "native"
> or "roaming".
>
> Also note that coverage may be classified as "roaming"; e.g. your phone
> works but there is an extra charge for the service. Your phone should
> tell you when you are "roaming" but you may not notice until you get your
> bill.

I'm commenting on ATT DSL service. I also go back to BAM with my wireless
service and continue to have Verizon Wireless. Unfortunately, I would have
to move to Durham to have Verizon phone/FIOS. In Raleigh we're in ATT
country for our phone service.

On 5/12/2011 5:35 AM, crkeehn wrote:
> "Dillon Pyron"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> .>
>> As in a heavy (well, not real "heavy" these days) user of Netflix?
>> Yeah, I can see someone tapping out.
>>
>> Oddly, though, TW, AT&T, Comcast, blah blah blah all want us to use
>> "their" services to stream this video, etc.
>>
>> I can kind of understand why AT&T is doing this. While their network
>> "could" be capable of handling more traffic, their design is based
>> more on a POTS model, which gets them into some real trouble if
>> everybody decides to watch the Victoria's Secrets ad (cleverly
>> masquarading as a TV show) on one set while the women folk are
>> watching something else on another. Add Junior trying to look at the
>> Vicky's online catalog at the same time and the network goes directly
>> to hell.
>>
>> AT&T has some good engineers being driven by bad management. I was at
>> SBC (Southwestern Bell, aka "the Baby Bell that ate America") as a
>> security consultant and got to watch the start of the trainwreck,
>> including some good engineers jumping off. Well, at least they got
>> the security part right. For 2001, that is.
>> --
>>
>> - dillon I am not invalid
>>
>> bin Laden thought of himself as a holy man. I guess
>> SEALs can't ***** because they made him a holey man.
>>
>
> Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
> records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
> don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
> their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.
>
> Carl
>
>

Is their some reason why you have not changed your service provider?
I've used Bell Atlantic Mobile ---> Verizon Wireless for about the last
fifteen years. I don't recall being anywhere that had no cellular
service. I accept that there probably are areas without service but I
have yet to encounter one!

If you have a friend who has Verizon Wireless, ask him to help you test
the service in your area. Test at your home, where you work, the route
from home to work, and any other locations where you feel that you MUST
have coverage. If the results are unsatisfactory, you might
want to test AT&T's coverage in the critical areas.

One other thing you might want to check is whether the service is
"native" or "roaming".

Also note that coverage may be classified as "roaming"; e.g. your phone
works but there is an extra charge for the service. Your phone should
tell you when you are "roaming" but you may not notice until you get
your bill.

crkeehn wrote on [Thu, 12 May 2011 05:35:38 -0400]:
>
>
> Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
> records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
> don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
> their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.

Knowing AT&T, what's to say that even if they do have a working bandwidth meter
that they wouldn't tack on usage 3 weeks later anyway. Apparently
their smartphone data usage was overestimated as well anyway.

"Dillon Pyron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
..>
> As in a heavy (well, not real "heavy" these days) user of Netflix?
> Yeah, I can see someone tapping out.
>
> Oddly, though, TW, AT&T, Comcast, blah blah blah all want us to use
> "their" services to stream this video, etc.
>
> I can kind of understand why AT&T is doing this. While their network
> "could" be capable of handling more traffic, their design is based
> more on a POTS model, which gets them into some real trouble if
> everybody decides to watch the Victoria's Secrets ad (cleverly
> masquarading as a TV show) on one set while the women folk are
> watching something else on another. Add Junior trying to look at the
> Vicky's online catalog at the same time and the network goes directly
> to hell.
>
> AT&T has some good engineers being driven by bad management. I was at
> SBC (Southwestern Bell, aka "the Baby Bell that ate America") as a
> security consultant and got to watch the start of the trainwreck,
> including some good engineers jumping off. Well, at least they got
> the security part right. For 2001, that is.
> --
>
> - dillon I am not invalid
>
> bin Laden thought of himself as a holy man. I guess
> SEALs can't ***** because they made him a holey man.
>

Interestingly enough, every time I go to the ATT site that supposedly
records the usage, I get the message that they can't calculate my usage,
don't worry. As someone who has had unpleasant experiences with ATT and
their billing practices, a statement like that makes me worry.

Carl

In article <[email protected]>, Dillon Pyron
says...


> AT&T has some good engineers being driven by bad management. I was at
> SBC (Southwestern Bell, aka "the Baby Bell that ate America") as a
> security consultant and got to watch the start of the trainwreck,
> including some good engineers jumping off. Well, at least they got
> the security part right. For 2001, that is.

My experience in Ohio was that Ohio Bell/Ameritech/SBC/at&t did have
quite competent engineers... the people at ASI that I dealt with were
all great. Management, however, is run by a bunch of criminals.


--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
[email protected]

Thus spake Justin <[email protected]> :

>Justin wrote on [Sun, 8 May 2011 01:53:46 +0000 (UTC)]:
>> Ryan P. wrote on [Sat, 07 May 2011 15:57:41 -0500]:
>>> On 5/5/2011 10:05 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> Ryan P. wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500]:
>>>>> On 5/4/2011 2:09 PM, SMS wrote:
>>>>>> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>>>>> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>>>>> other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>>>>>> up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>>>>>> downloading of huge video files.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they can stick to it, 250GB is not really a cap... Except for the
>>>>> people constantly running torrents, I don't see who else that would effect.
>>>>
>>>> Do we really need to go through this again?
>>>>
>>>> 4 hours of HD streaming per day is 248GB.
>>>>
>>>> Stay at home spouse, kids, multiple streams running at once and you
>>>> have hit your cap with ONLY video.
>>>
>>> Now let's get back to reality, and look at people's actually data
>>> speeds. If you've got a typical 10Mb connection, you're only capable of
>>> downloading 4.7GB per hour, assuming you get 100% of your rated speed.
>>> That's 53 hours of transfer time before you could even theoretically
>>> reach 250GB.
>>>
>>> Let's also look at what any of these streaming services are actually
>>> streaming... They are NOT streaming you 248GB of data for 4 hours of movie.
>>>
>>> Unless you think that the average person has an ISP offering them
>>> 507,904Mb service?
>>>
>>> The theoretical speed of Verizon's FIOS is 50Mb. The highest speed
>>> U-Verse offers is 24Mb.
>>>
>>> So how exactly is anybody supposed to use up 248GB in 4 hours?
>>
>> did you miss the per day portion of that sentence?
>
>As in, 4GB per day for 30 days

As in a heavy (well, not real "heavy" these days) user of Netflix?
Yeah, I can see someone tapping out.

Oddly, though, TW, AT&T, Comcast, blah blah blah all want us to use
"their" services to stream this video, etc.

I can kind of understand why AT&T is doing this. While their network
"could" be capable of handling more traffic, their design is based
more on a POTS model, which gets them into some real trouble if
everybody decides to watch the Victoria's Secrets ad (cleverly
masquarading as a TV show) on one set while the women folk are
watching something else on another. Add Junior trying to look at the
Vicky's online catalog at the same time and the network goes directly
to hell.

AT&T has some good engineers being driven by bad management. I was at
SBC (Southwestern Bell, aka "the Baby Bell that ate America") as a
security consultant and got to watch the start of the trainwreck,
including some good engineers jumping off. Well, at least they got
the security part right. For 2001, that is.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

bin Laden thought of himself as a holy man. I guess
SEALs can't ***** because they made him a holey man.

Thus spake SMS <[email protected]> :

>AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>customers that they announced a few months ago:
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>
>I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>other entities that offer free wi-fi.

From the standpoint of being capped? It seems that, from the offers
I've received from AT&T for my business, that I can get uncapped
service "For a Few Dollars More". And I'm sure that as the bandwidth
you buy goes up say a couple of OC12 connections?) the happier they'll
be to let you run free.

>
>It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>downloading of huge video files.

As someone else pointed out, the network will go to a crawl long
before you slap any video on it. At around 15 users juet the overhead
will send the network to a crawl and at maybe 10 or 11 doing any kind
of activity not related to streaming, etc you'll see your network on
its knees.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

bin Laden thought of himself as a holy man. I guess
SEALs can't ***** because they made him a holey man.

Justin wrote on [Sun, 8 May 2011 01:53:46 +0000 (UTC)]:
> Ryan P. wrote on [Sat, 07 May 2011 15:57:41 -0500]:
>> On 5/5/2011 10:05 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> Ryan P. wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500]:
>>>> On 5/4/2011 2:09 PM, SMS wrote:
>>>>> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>>>> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>>>> other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>>>>> up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>>>>> downloading of huge video files.
>>>>
>>>> If they can stick to it, 250GB is not really a cap... Except for the
>>>> people constantly running torrents, I don't see who else that would effect.
>>>
>>> Do we really need to go through this again?
>>>
>>> 4 hours of HD streaming per day is 248GB.
>>>
>>> Stay at home spouse, kids, multiple streams running at once and you
>>> have hit your cap with ONLY video.
>>
>> Now let's get back to reality, and look at people's actually data
>> speeds. If you've got a typical 10Mb connection, you're only capable of
>> downloading 4.7GB per hour, assuming you get 100% of your rated speed.
>> That's 53 hours of transfer time before you could even theoretically
>> reach 250GB.
>>
>> Let's also look at what any of these streaming services are actually
>> streaming... They are NOT streaming you 248GB of data for 4 hours of movie.
>>
>> Unless you think that the average person has an ISP offering them
>> 507,904Mb service?
>>
>> The theoretical speed of Verizon's FIOS is 50Mb. The highest speed
>> U-Verse offers is 24Mb.
>>
>> So how exactly is anybody supposed to use up 248GB in 4 hours?
>
> did you miss the per day portion of that sentence?

As in, 4GB per day for 30 days

Ryan P. wrote on [Sat, 07 May 2011 15:57:41 -0500]:
> On 5/5/2011 10:05 PM, Justin wrote:
>> Ryan P. wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500]:
>>> On 5/4/2011 2:09 PM, SMS wrote:
>>>> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>>> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>>
>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>>> other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>>
>>>> It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>>>> up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>>>> downloading of huge video files.
>>>
>>> If they can stick to it, 250GB is not really a cap... Except for the
>>> people constantly running torrents, I don't see who else that would effect.
>>
>> Do we really need to go through this again?
>>
>> 4 hours of HD streaming per day is 248GB.
>>
>> Stay at home spouse, kids, multiple streams running at once and you
>> have hit your cap with ONLY video.
>
> Now let's get back to reality, and look at people's actually data
> speeds. If you've got a typical 10Mb connection, you're only capable of
> downloading 4.7GB per hour, assuming you get 100% of your rated speed.
> That's 53 hours of transfer time before you could even theoretically
> reach 250GB.
>
> Let's also look at what any of these streaming services are actually
> streaming... They are NOT streaming you 248GB of data for 4 hours of movie.
>
> Unless you think that the average person has an ISP offering them
> 507,904Mb service?
>
> The theoretical speed of Verizon's FIOS is 50Mb. The highest speed
> U-Verse offers is 24Mb.
>
> So how exactly is anybody supposed to use up 248GB in 4 hours?

did you miss the per day portion of that sentence?

On 5/7/2011 4:43 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:03:05 -0500, "Ryan P."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I know data can get used up in a hurry.. Justin mentioned streaming HD
>> video from some online provider. There is only so much bandwidth
>> available per second to us, though.
>
> I saw that. I thought he was talking about heavy usage for 4 hours per
> day, while you seemed to interpret it as 4 hours of heavy usage per
> month. I'm sure he'll follow up, though, if he hasn't already.

Good point.. I didn't think of it that way.

On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:03:05 -0500, "Ryan P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I know data can get used up in a hurry.. Justin mentioned streaming HD
>video from some online provider. There is only so much bandwidth
>available per second to us, though.

I saw that. I thought he was talking about heavy usage for 4 hours per
day, while you seemed to interpret it as 4 hours of heavy usage per
month. I'm sure he'll follow up, though, if he hasn't already.

--
Paul Miner

On 5/5/2011 10:20 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500, "Ryan P."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/2011 2:09 PM, SMS wrote:
>>> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>
>>> I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>> other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>
>>> It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>>> up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>>> downloading of huge video files.
>>
>> If they can stick to it, 250GB is not really a cap... Except for the
>> people constantly running torrents, I don't see who else that would effect.
>
> Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
> that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
> at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.
>

I was referring to U-Verse, which will apparently be 250GB vs their
DSL which will indeed be 150GB.

I know data can get used up in a hurry.. Justin mentioned streaming HD
video from some online provider. There is only so much bandwidth
available per second to us, though.

On 5/5/2011 10:05 PM, Justin wrote:
> Ryan P. wrote on [Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500]:
>> On 5/4/2011 2:09 PM, SMS wrote:
>>> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>
>>> I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>> other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>
>>> It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>>> up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>>> downloading of huge video files.
>>
>> If they can stick to it, 250GB is not really a cap... Except for the
>> people constantly running torrents, I don't see who else that would effect.
>
> Do we really need to go through this again?
>
> 4 hours of HD streaming per day is 248GB.
>
> Stay at home spouse, kids, multiple streams running at once and you
> have hit your cap with ONLY video.

Now let's get back to reality, and look at people's actually data
speeds. If you've got a typical 10Mb connection, you're only capable of
downloading 4.7GB per hour, assuming you get 100% of your rated speed.
That's 53 hours of transfer time before you could even theoretically
reach 250GB.

Let's also look at what any of these streaming services are actually
streaming... They are NOT streaming you 248GB of data for 4 hours of movie.

Unless you think that the average person has an ISP offering them
507,904Mb service?

The theoretical speed of Verizon's FIOS is 50Mb. The highest speed
U-Verse offers is 24Mb.

So how exactly is anybody supposed to use up 248GB in 4 hours?

On Fri, 06 May 2011 05:16:18 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:20:34 -0500, Paul Miner
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
>>that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
>>at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.
>
>Not trying to excuse AT&T, but it's still better than the 60GB cap
>they were talking about when they instituted their cap test markets.

Most definitely!

--
Paul Miner

On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:20:34 -0500, Paul Miner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:54:47 -0500, "Ryan P."
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 5/4/2011 2:09 PM, SMS wrote:
>>> AT&T is now implementing the capped bandwidth for broadband and DSL
>>> customers that they announced a few months ago:
>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/tech...caps/index.htm
>>>
>>> I wonder how this will affect the increasing number of businesses and
>>> other entities that offer free wi-fi.
>>>
>>> It may be time to implement traffic shaping. At the very least I'd set
>>> up the routers to 802.11b only to slow access and discourage the
>>> downloading of huge video files.
>>
>> If they can stick to it, 250GB is not really a cap... Except for the
>>people constantly running torrents, I don't see who else that would effect.
>
>Is it worth pointing out that torrents are only one of many scenarios
>that have the potential for usage of large amounts of data? Besides,
>at&t's DSL customers are capped at 150GB rather than 250GB.

Not trying to excuse AT&T, but it's still better than the 60GB cap
they were talking about when they instituted their cap test markets.