As AT&T Introduces Caps, BT Removes Them; Says Investing In Network Is Smarter | Hacker News Reader

As AT&T Introduces Caps, BT Removes Them; Says Investing In Network Is Smarter

techdirt.com

57 pointsyanw8 comments

This article is misleading. BT is not removing all caps, it is only removing a 300GB cap for BT Infinity customers. They still have a 10GB cap and a "whopping 40GB" cap in place on their basic and mid level plans.

    'Hi everyone

    Yes, this is true! and BT Infinity customers will benefit from the removal of
    Fair Usage Policy (FUP) controls when they begin to be removed from April 2011.
    Once removed, heavy user customers will be able to download/stream as much as
    they wish without having their speeds restricted.

    BT will remove the FUP controls currently applied to customers with ‘atypical’
    usage. Today atypical users are restricted at 300GB usage and account for less
    than 0.5% of the BT customer base. BT will not target any individuals with
    restrictions based on usage levels. However, we still have traffic management
    policies that will restrict certain applications / protocols, such as P2P,
    when the network is busy.

    As BT continues to invest in the network and network bandwidth we can now
    remove these restrictions and ensure the experience of the wider customer base.

    (Note that charges will still apply for going over limits on BT Total Broadband
    Options 1&2 and BT Infinity Option 1 but traffic will not be managed.)

    Thx
    Kerry
    BTCare Community Manager'

Bear in mind though, that BT is a terrible terrible company that you should go well out of your way to avoid contact with if at all possible. Every dealing I've ever had with them has involved them screwing it up in unimaginable ways involving multi-week disruptions in service and hours on the phone to rectify.

There are alternatives to every service that BT offers. They cost more on paper, but they are much much cheaper if you value your time at even one dollar an hour.

I also want to echo this, they took 2 months to move my broadband because their engineers kept cancelling tickets because the operators hadn't entered them correctly.

They then consistently billed me incorrectly, their bills are fubar in terms of trying to decipher them and calling them is a massive pain, they usually transfer you to call centres in India full of people who do not have a clue about anything more complicated than how much your last bill was and have no power to do anything at all.

I also randomly get 1 kbps (yes, 1) on SVN and FTP at weekend peak times as I'm guessing it's incorrectly flagged as p2p, at the best of times get only 2 meg even though I was consistently told I'd get 4 meg and youtube/bbc iPlayer often lags at peak time even at low quality.

They traffic shape like crazy, so never expect that 300 gig.

Avoid these guys at all cost.

I think the takeaway point from this is not that BT is doing something well, it's that AT&T is so horrible they can't even do as good as a terrible terrible company.

I switched away from Comcast over to Verizon because Comcast has a 250 GB cap (even if you're paying for their 50/10 service), and Verizon doesn't cap you. At 50 Mbit down from Comcast I could use up my entire monthly allowance in just over 11 hours (without any upstream, math may be suspect it's early). That seems crazy to me. Vote with your dollars (if you're lucky enough to have options) and let them know that caps aren't a good thing.

I wish that was an option for quite a few people. Verizon doesn't really cover a lot of places and they don't plan to expand their services in the near future

e.g. here in Boston, they provide services in the suburbs but not in the city {i tried getting their service at 2 apartments but got the same answer both times that they don't service the area and the only available product was their DSL service}.

Caps are inevitable. Human wants are infinite but human resources are finite. While some resources are more plentiful than others, and human wants may not have caught up with resources in the short term, those fundamentals will never change.

As one would expect, there are no resources in the world which don't have caps at the limit (or a per-unit charge, which is the same thing in aggregate): water, electricity, gas, oil, fish, wood, bulk voice communications etc. Greenhouse gas emissions and dumping are the notable exceptions, and soon to change once the situation gets so bad that politicians set up the appropriate economic systems to properly account for externalized costs.

What you say is true, but AFAIK bandwidth is cheap enough and generally so much more plentiful than demand that artificial caps should almost never be necessary. If a provider actually needs to institute caps, it's usually a sign that they're being lax in maintaining their network. Further evidence: These are the same guys who lobby against community fiber networks, despite the fact that these entrenched players should already have an enormous advantage if they haven't been sitting on their laurels for the past half a decade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com