I'm screwed

Based on 5 minutes of monitoring ONE of the computers in the house, with nothing going but Yahoo IM, AOL instant messnger, Windows Live messenger, and  5 IRC channels on one server, I am going to use 165gb of my 250gb a month cap assuming no chatting, just logged in watching

8.7 minutes of watching google's doodle today, will use a GB

30.02 hours of 720p youtube (which isn't 720p, it's quite less actually) and you are at 250gb. Screwed. Screwed with AT&T

Senator Lugar replies to my letter about AT&T

Dear Mr. Mercer:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding AT&T's decision to implement usage caps.  I appreciate this opportunity to respond. 

 

I understand your concerns regarding usage caps, and I encourage you to voice your complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which maintains a consumer information bureau to handle disputes within the telecommunications industry.  You can file a complaint online at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html, or write to them at:

 

Federal Communications Commission

Consumer Information Bureau

Consumer Complaints

445 12th Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20554

 

Much has changed since Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  As new technologies have emerged - wireless, broadband, Internet-based voice services - each has put strains on the web of regulations that originated more than a decade ago under this Act.  Senators from both parties agree that congressional action is needed in the near future to resolve these issues. 

 

Competition has not taken root as quickly as I would have liked, but it does exist.  Cable companies are losing some customers to satellite services, which offer cost-competitive packages, and the telephone operating companies are gearing up to offer bundled packages of telephone, broadband Internet, and cable television programming. 

 

I will have your concerns closely in mind should Congress discuss usage caps directly.  Again, thank you for contacting me. 

 

 

                              
                              Sincerely,


                                                            Richard G. Lugar
                                                            United States Senator



CIA's ties to Facebook

Did you know the CIA has a venture fund, and openly invests in facebook…

 

The company is called In-Q-Tel

 

“We [the CIA] decided to use our limited dollars to leverage technology developed elsewhere. In 1999 we chartered ... In-Q-Tel. ... While we pay the bills, In-Q-Tel is independent of CIA. CIA identifies pressing problems, and In-Q-Tel provides the technology to address them. The In-Q-Tel alliance has put the Agency back at the leading edge of technology ... This ... collaboration ... enabled CIA to take advantage of the technology that Las Vegas uses to identify corrupt card players and apply it to link analysis for terrorists [cf. the parallel data-mining effort by the SOCOM-DIA operation Able Danger ], and to adapt the technology that online booksellers use and convert it to scour millions of pages of documents looking for unexpected results”

Dating

Well my friend said on his radio show yesterday 4$ gas within a week, it was 3.60 yesterday, 3.99 today. He also says 5$ by June and 6$ by the end of the summer based on what the 'experts' are saying... if this is the case, I'm afraid I will have to hope I can find someone to date and marry that already lives on my street, that works within a half mile of my work so we can drive to work together. *nods* haha

Math showing AT&T is nuts with their cap!

Assumptions:
24 Mbps / 8 bits  = 3 MB/s (this is the tier I am on, and I can get around 2.8MB/s download, so this is close enough).

 

Caps:
150 GB * 1024 KB = 153,600 MB (DSL)
250 GB * 1024 KB = 256,000 MB (U-verse)


Formula: (using U-verse 24 Mbps)
250 GB * 1024 KB * 8 bits / 24 Mbps / 60 sec / 60 min = 23.7 hours (1 day) to hit cap.


I got the tiers from: http://www.att.net/speedtiers


Results: (time to reach cap at full throttle)
455.1 hours (19 days) for DSL 768 Kbps
227.5 hours (10 days) for DSL 1.5 Mbps
113.7 hours (5 days) for DSL 3 Mbps
56.9 hours (2 days) for DSL 6 Mbps
189.6 hours (8 days) for U-verse 3 Mbps
94.8 hours (4 days) for U-verse 6 Mbps
47.4 hours (2 days) for U-verse 12 Mbps
31.6 hours (1 day) for U-verse 18 Mbps
23.7 hours (< 1 day) for U-verse 24 Mbps


Now, if all of the above were paying the same, I might see this as fair, but considering that the faster speeds pay more, but do not get more cap, this is absolutely NOT fair.  For some more math fun, how much could you download in 30 days on the 24Mbps plan?


Answer: 7,593.75 GB.  Overage fee @ $10 per 50GB would be: $1,470.



Letter to my senators about AT&T

I’m a writing concerning a recent decision AT&T has made to place a cap on internet bandwidth usage for the subscribers of their internet service.  They claim it is needed to combat congestion on their network.  As an avid computer enthusiast and based on the various articles I have read, I have a hard time buying that and feel there is something fundamentally wrong with what they are doing.  Please let me explain.

 

Starting May 2, AT&T will be implementing a 250 GB per month cap on the bandwidth of my internet service, anything over that and I will be charged an additional $10 per 50GB.  They claim that it will only affect 2% of their users and is needed due to people abusing their unlimited internet (I’m at a loss to understand how anyone can abuse “unlimited” anything, but that is a different discussion).

 

AT&T offers a package called U-verse, it consists of TV, Phone and Internet Service.  All three of these services are internet based, unlike traditional cable.  AT&T uses IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) for their TV service, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) for their phone service and IP (internet Protocol) for their internet service.  So all three of the services I pay for use internet bandwidth to function.  Now with all three services being internet based and consuming bandwidth on their network, the only service they will be limiting is the Internet service.  This may sound reasonable, but let me put it another way.  The only service they are limiting is the service that provides us access to their competitor’s services.  Such as Netflix, Hulu, You Tube, on-line back-up services etc.  The bandwidth used to access AT&T services (TV/Phone) is still unlimited

 

                There are many articles on-line from various reliable sources debunking their claims of the need to limit.  It is generally accepted that wholesale bandwidth costs 2 -7 cents per GB.  With this cap I will be paying 22 cents per GB (300% markup).   I feel there is a distinct possibility their claims of network work congestion are either false, exaggerated or intentionally created (by failing to reinvest in system upgrades needed to keep pace with demand/Technology) in order to justify the caps, thus limiting our access to competing services.   All one has to do it look at Japan and Korea, who has far superior internet services for a much lower price.  I feel this is largely due them having solid competition in that sector.  Their companies reinvest capital to keep their systems in-line with demands and technology.  They don’t allow their systems to fall behind then claim it’s their customers fault and impose caps.

 

In today’s day and age, the internet is as vital to individuals and business as the roads and highways across our country.  Americans use it to go to school, shop, communicate etc and thousands of businesses rely upon the internet for consumers to access their services.  To have AT&T discriminate between different bandwidth uses seems profoundly unfair and is detrimental to the web-based commerce across the country and around the world.  Customer complaints are falling on deaf ears, because the government has allowed duopolies to take over the internet service provider sector.  Most cities only have access to the internet through their local Cable or Telephone Company, thus there is no need to accommodate the customer.  The best example of this is seen in COMCAST’s policy.  They have become so arrogant they don’t just charge you extra if you exceed their limit, they suspend your entire internet service for a year.  They act like purchasing their product is privilege and you have abused that privilege and will be punished.  That’s how far out of kilter this has gotten.

 

The primary concern I have is ISPs can make unsubstantiated claims of network congestion or even worse create an artificial shortage of bandwidth by deliberately withholding system upgrades, in order to justify implementing bandwidth caps.  Whether it is intentional or not the end result is limiting our access to their competitor’s on-line services.  This is no different that the Telephone company limiting your “unlimited” local calling to keep you from using a competitor’s long distance service.  But if you use the Telephone Company’s long distance service there is no limitation or additional charge. 

 

                I encourage you to work towards keeping access to the internet as unlimited as our access to the nation’s highways.  American’s and businesses need this to survive and prosper.  Please promote competition in the ISP sector and help break up the duopolies which threaten and control our access to this vital resource.  I am a believer in the free market system, but the government’s actions have limited competition and short circuited the protections a free-mark provides.  As of now there is very limited over-sight of ISPs and their power to limit our freedoms…the freedom to choose who we purchase our on-line services from.  Please provide me your position on this issue and let me know if there is any legislation you’re aware of to help correct this. Thank you for your time and I patiently await your response.