Home » AT&T »Competition »Consumer News »Data Caps »DSL Extreme/trueSTREAM » Currently Reading:

AT&T U-verse Customers Can Escape AT&T’s Usage Caps With DSL Extreme’s trueSTREAM

Phillip Dampier September 10, 2014 AT&T, Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, DSL Extreme/trueSTREAM 4 Comments

dsl extremeThere is a way out for AT&T U-verse customers stuck dealing with the company’s arbitrary 250GB monthly usage cap — sign up with U-verse reseller DSL Extreme for the same Internet access with no usage caps whatsoever.

Today, DSL Extreme announced the introduction of trueSTREAM in 21 states serviced by AT&T’s U-verse fiber to the neighborhood system. Much like Earthlink’s reseller agreement with Time Warner Cable, customers can transparently switch between the two providers and receive essentially the same service at a different price point.

The biggest selling point of trueSTREAM is that it has absolutely no usage limits.

DSL Extreme has signed a contract with AT&T to offer the service in states including California, Texas, Illinois, and Florida, among many others.

Customers don’t need to have a phone line to subscribe. They will need to lease a wireless gateway router ($6.50/mo) from DSL Extreme and the rate plans are similar to AT&T’s own U-verse broadband offerings:

  • truestreamValue ($17.95/mo) 768/384kbps
  • Plus ($22.95/mo) 1.5Mbps/384kbps
  • Pro ($27.95/mo) 3Mbps/512kbps
  • Elite ($32.95/mo) 6Mbps/768kbps
  • Max ($37.95/mo) 12/1Mbps
  • Max Plus ($42.95/mo) 18/1.5Mbps
  • Max Turbo ($52.95/mo) 24/3Mbps
  • Power ($62.95/mo) 45/6Mbps
  • Power Plus ($92.95/mo) 75/8Mbps

Professional installation is now free of charge and an optional one-year contract delivers other extras, such as a static IP address. A Supplier Surcharge Recovery fee of $2.88 per month applies. Customers can pre-qualify on the company’s website.

The coverage area of trueSTREAM will extend the company’s reach overnight to 30 million potential customer locations, growing to nearly 60 million by 2015.

Currently there are 4 comments on this Article:

  1. Bill A says:

    This is great news! Finally some competition to the monopolies! I just signed up.

    Installation is in a couple weeks. I’m so happy to support a company that does not have data caps! Goodbye AT&T and Cox.

    It was interesting when I called At&t the rep did not even know they had data caps, until she talked with her supervisor. She was very sure (At&t) that 250G was plenty for me. Who are they to tell me how much data I need!

    I have to pay to get out of my contract but it is worth it to support no data caps!

    • If enough U-verse customers say goodbye over data caps, there probably won’t be data caps. They are just there to further monetize their operation, which is already quite profitable, and to appease Wall Street which seems to constantly ask broadband providers when they will cap their Internet plans.

  2. g.d. williams says:

    AT&T SUCKS AND IS MONOPOLIZING THE INTERNET THANKS TO OUR DAMN CONGRESS WHO LET AT&T GET AWAY WITH——-BUYING DIRECTV—–TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ALL THEY CAN. I HATE AT&T!!!!! DONT KNOW THEIR LEFT FROM RIGHT. THANK UR SENATORS FOR THIS LITTLE DEAL AS THEIR IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE MONOPOLIZING—FIXING PRICES OUT OF SIGHT. TO FORMER DIRECTV CUSTOMERS. LOOK TO SEE UR RATES GO SKY HIGH AND POOR SERVICE AS SINCE THEY OWN AT&T AND DIRECTV—THEY CONTROL PRICES ESPECIALLY WHEN THE NEW WEARA OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!! AT&T WILL TELL YOU “NOTHING WILL CHANGE”” I SAY BULL**IT AS WHY DO YOU THINK THEY BOUGHT DIRECTV WHEN THEY ALREADY Hs internet service ND UVERSE (LOUSY) T.V. SERVICE. WORST TV EXPERIENCE I EVER HAD.

    WISE UP AMERICA—WE ARE SOLD DOWN THE DRAIN FOR WEALTH OF CONGRESS APPROVAL PAY-OFFS! GET WISE—OUR WORDS MEAN NOTHING IN AMERICA AND NEVER DID. WHY DO YOU THINK AT&T BOUGHT DIRECTV??????????????? CONTROL AIR WAYS///////// PRICES AND THE ASS YOU MAY HAVE VOTED FOR APPROVED IT.

    FOR FIVE YEARS I BEEN NUYING FROM CHINA///ASIA SUPPLIERS ALL I CAN.. WHY??????????? 1/4TH THE COST AND FREE SHIPPING ALWAYS. PAID NONE IN 10 YEARS FOR AIR OR POSTAGE AND ARRIVES AT MY DOOR IN 6-10 DAYS.
    IN U.S WE PAY SHIPPING COST AT TIMES MORE—MORE THAN THE PRODUCT.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA???? GOD DAMN AMERICA FOR WHAT ITS DONE.

  3. Joe V. says:

    They finally expanded to my area however in order to use their service, you need to either buy or lease their modem which makes using third-party devices out. That’s the only gripe I have about this.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Denise Rupert: Class action??...
  • Paul Houle: WatchTV legitimizes the idea of unbundling local channels from cable channels and it is about time. For many consumers, retransmission is a waste, ...
  • Paul Houle: I can believe in AT&T's plan, but not Comcast. For better or worse, AT&T is going "all in" on video and is unlike other major providers in ...
  • Phillip Dampier: Yes, that battle with Northwest Broadcasting, which also involved stations in Idaho-Wyoming and California, was the nastiest in recent history, with s...
  • Doug Stoffa: Digital takes up way less space than old analog feeds - agreed. In a given 6 MHz block, the cable company can send down 1 NTSC analog station, 2-4 HD...
  • Phillip Dampier: Digital video TV channels occupy next to nothing as far as bandwidth goes. Just look at the huge number of premium international channels loading up o...
  • Doug Stoffa: It's a bit more complicated than that. Television stations (and the networks that provide them programming) have increased their retransmission fees ...
  • Alex sandro: Most of the companies offer their services with contracts but Spectrum cable company offer contract free offers for initial year which is a very good ...
  • John: I live in of the effected counties, believe it or not our village is twenty three miles from WSKG Tower, approxiamately eighty miles from Syracuse, WS...
  • Wilhelm: I'm in the Finger Lakes where Spectrum removed WROC-8 last Fall, but we still get other Rochester channels, WHAM-13, WHEC-10 and WXXI-21. I have to wo...
  • dhkjsalhf: "Another classic case of businesses being much smarter than governments." I don't know whether this was sarcastic or not, but I feel it's a sentiment...
  • New Yorker: It makes no sense. I wonder sometimes if raising the limits on how much money rich people giving to candidates could make it more expensive to buy of...

Your Account: