
As AT&T Introduces Caps, BT Removes Them; Says Investing In Network Is Smarter - yanw
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/08473413487/as-att-introduces-caps-bt-removes-them-says-investing-network-is-smarter.shtml
======
alextgordon
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'

------
jasonkester
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.

~~~
isleyaardvark
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.

------
modoc
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.

~~~
desigooner
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}.

------
codex
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.

~~~
chc
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.

