[geuis]

Bullshit. Nearly every broadband ISP in the US has had unlimited download and upload for the last 12+ years. When I got my first cable modem in 1997 and since then, its always been unlimited. While our access speeds have gone up, they haven't gone up in comparison to other nations. What AT&T and other providers are saying is that they haven't been investing in their backbone and regional connections, while increasing customer speeds. This is complete bullshit.

[jerf]

Bullshit. Nearly every broadband ISP in the US has cut you off with varying levels of warning if you use "excessive bandwidth" for years and years now. It's been a continuous stream of complaints about such things over the years. I actually give kudos to Comcast for finally putting a marker down on "excessive usage" a couple of years ago, and even more kudos now to AT&T for not only being explicit but providing an overage plan that is not terribly unreasonable for consumer internet. Despite my disinclination to give kudos to either company for anything.

There's no such thing as a truly unlimited service. I prefer that they be upfront about the limits.

Since Comcast put the 250 GB cap in place, I've had a hard time breaking 100GB, and I do several things that chew through bandwidth, like hi-def Netflix and a lot of OS updates and downloads. (Been shopping around for a Linux distro the last couple of weekends, for instance.) I have a hard time complaining.

[thematt]

Broadband and wireless ISP's have for years have been advertising unlimited plans of service while silently cutting you off if you cross some vague limit deemed as "excessive". You're right, kudos to Comcast and AT&T for putting a hard number out there to monitor against, but forgive me if I don't have the least bit of trust or respect for the ISP community.

[tptacek]

What is something legitimate that you can do with 250GB in a month (that's 83 HD movie downloads), and, when you identify it, can you also tell me why the 98% of people who pay for U-Verse should have to pay for that level of service, which they will never come close to using/

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Either the top 2% pay a noticeable premium, or everybody pays a less noticeable premium. AT&T is not a charity, it's not a public utility, and it's not a monopoly.

[adbge]

> can you also tell me why the 98% of people who pay for U-Verse should have to pay for that level of service, which they will never come close to using

They are now effectively paying the exact same amount for a reduced level of (potential) service. Unless you're willing to speculate that this will eventually lower costs for the 98% (doubt it, are Comcast's users better off?), there is no gain for any end user in this scenario.

[tptacek]

In what way is their service reduced? Nobody who isn't torrenting is going to come anywhere close to this cap. It's 250 hours of streaming HD video.

[Bud]

As pointed out by various users above, you're simply wrong. This will not only cap pirates.