dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-09-30 10:12:29: Back in March Suddenlink gave users a new usage meter in order to help better "educate" users about their bandwidth consumption. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

peterwolf
@gblx.net

peterwolf

Anon

Typical

So they say typical usage is 43GB a month. lol ATT says it is less then 20GB a month.

Who is to say what is typical usage?
flycuban
join:2005-04-25
Homestead, FL

flycuban

Member

Re: Typical

it's pretty much whatever their mgt. decides..
ualdayan
join:2004-07-17
Antioch, TN

ualdayan

Member

Re: Typical

If these guys ran 'all you can eat buffets' they'd advertise 'All you can eat $60!' (we pay a LOT more for our internet than most countries, and the whole population density argument doesn't hold water when companies aren't forced to cover rural areas and most choose not to), then tell us 'The average person only eats 2 plates of food, so now we're limiting everybody that comes in after this policy change to 2 plates, and to anybody already in here - well, we'll still give you unlimited, but we're throttling you to 1 plate per day. Effectively that makes it not so unlimited, but...we're the only all you can eat thanks to our monopolistic practices so screw all of you!'

Then once those people that used to use 3 plates are down to 2 they can announce that the average has been brought down to 1 plate so now they're adjusting everything downward again.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No to peterwolf

Member

to peterwolf
said by peterwolf :

So they say typical usage is 43GB a month. lol ATT says it is less then 20GB a month.

Who is to say what is typical usage?

There is no such thing as typical. Every user is unqiue and usage cannot be lump together in categories to predict the future. You will never know what a users uses until they use it.
Sometimes it could be 300GB a month and sometimes 10GB a month. All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?
said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No

Member

Re: Typical

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.
Sure you can average past numbers, but that is not a valid use of statistics for saying what users will use. Every user is unique.
To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.
It is very sustainable unless you want to protect tv subscriptions that have nothing to do with the internet.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.

Huh?
said by Oh_No:

To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.

How do you get to an estimate of potential peak usage? Please don't suggest totalling max advertised connection speeds for all customers.
said by Oh_No:

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.

But that's not what we're discussing. Your assumption implies that if an ISP has 1,000 customers for a single node, each subscribing to a tier advertising max throughput of 10 Mbps, then that ISP must plan for 10 Gbps of throughput. That is unsupportable.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Typical

Though his argument is crazy in one respect, even you would have to admit that they use the maximum potential bandwidth usage and utilization charts when they determine upgrade paths and such.

"All networks are built and upgraded" with X% of peak utilization in mind. I use the "" loosely as it is clear with monopolistic/duopolistic ISP's they don't necessarily use it to build or upgrade, just to restrict and monetize.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by Skippy25:

even you would have to admit that they use the maximum potential bandwidth usage and utilization charts when they determine upgrade paths and such.

Of course. That's the basis for capacity planning capital expenditure decisions.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.

Huh?

Huh? I guess you don't know how statistics work.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.

How do you get to an estimate of potential peak usage? Please don't suggest totalling max advertised connection speeds for all customers.

Estimate?? It is a hard caculation based on the speed you give each customer.
In cases where networks cannot handle 50 mbps sustained due to being over sold, the ISP should not sell 50 mbps. They should sell 5 mbps (or whatever the network can handle) but with a "speed boost up to 50 mbps". Just offering 50 mbps (even with BS small print) is very misleading if the network cannot handle it.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.

But that's not what we're discussing. Your assumption implies that if an ISP has 1,000 customers for a single node, each subscribing to a tier advertising max throughput of 10 Mbps, then that ISP must plan for 10 Gbps of throughput. That is unsupportable.

It is very supportable to offer what your network can handle instead of lying.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by Oh_No:

Huh? I guess you don't know how statistics work.

Are you seriously suggesting that an average doesn't exist? And you're questioning my statistical knowledge?
said by Oh_No:

Estimate?? It is a hard caculation based on the speed you give each customer.

That is simply not feasible.
said by Oh_No:

It is very supportable to offer what your network can handle instead of lying.

Using Comcast and it's 17.55M HSI subs as an example, if Comcast were to maintain a capacity of 100 Gbps, the company would only be able to offer a maximum speed tier of ~5.7 kbps based on your logic. Are you ready for that?

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven

Member

Re: Typical

said by openbox9:

Using Comcast and it's 17.55M HSI subs as an example, if Comcast were to maintain a capacity of 100 Gbps, the company would only be able to offer a maximum speed tier of ~5.7 kbps based on your logic. Are you ready for that?

..if the 17.55M subscribers were in the same area.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

100 Gbps assumption is for Comcast's backbone, therefore the 17.55M subscribers across its customer base is applicable.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Huh? I guess you don't know how statistics work.

Are you seriously suggesting that an average doesn't exist? And you're questioning my statistical knowledge?

Yes the average in the way that you and ISPs are trying to use doesn't exist. You cant predict the future off a simple average.
Yes I am clearly questioning your statistical knowledge as you dont seem to understand this.
A customer's usage is not "in control".
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Estimate?? It is a hard caculation based on the speed you give each customer.

That is simply not feasible.

Yes it is.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

It is very supportable to offer what your network can handle instead of lying.

Using Comcast and it's 17.55M HSI subs as an example, if Comcast were to maintain a capacity of 100 Gbps, the company would only be able to offer a maximum speed tier of ~5.7 kbps based on your logic. Are you ready for that?

Comcast 100 Gbps for 17.55M?? LOL, you are damn funny.
Yes I am ready for them to build a network that can handle the subscriptions.
FYI, caps and usage billing do nothing to prevent congestion at peak times.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by Oh_No:

Yes the average in the way that you and ISPs are trying to use doesn't exist. You cant predict the future off a simple average.
Yes I am clearly questioning your statistical knowledge as you dont seem to understand this.
A customer's usage is not "in control".

I don't know how much sillier this conversation can get.
said by Oh_No:

Comcast 100 Gbps for 17.55M?? LOL, you are damn funny.

Do the math, it's not very funny.
said by Oh_No:

Yes I am ready for them to build a network that can handle the subscriptions.

Consumers aren't willing/able to pay that bill.
said by Oh_No:

FYI, caps and usage billing do nothing to prevent congestion at peak times.

Never suggested that they do.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No

Member

Re: Typical

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Yes the average in the way that you and ISPs are trying to use doesn't exist. You cant predict the future off a simple average.
Yes I am clearly questioning your statistical knowledge as you dont seem to understand this.
A customer's usage is not "in control".

I don't know how much sillier this conversation can get.

Well if you keep making stupid statements it will keep getting worse.
Really you need to do some statistics reading and learn what "in control" means before you say there is a real average that can be used for any reasonable prediction.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Comcast 100 Gbps for 17.55M?? LOL, you are damn funny.

Do the math, it's not very funny.
said by Oh_No:

Yes I am ready for them to build a network that can handle the subscriptions.

Consumers aren't willing/able to pay that bill.

People have been paying for that from about 1995 to about 2011 and ISPs were very, very profitable. It is nothing new to have an unlimited connection and a network that can handle the users at peak times.
said by openbox9:

[

said by Oh_No:

FYI, caps and usage billing do nothing to prevent congestion at peak times.

Never suggested that they do.

Then why are you defending caps????
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 edit

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by Oh_No:

Well if you keep making stupid statements it will keep getting worse.
Really you need to do some statistics reading and learn what "in control" means before you say there is a real average that can be used for any reasonable prediction.

There's obviously a communications breakdown between the two of us. First, average is average. It's not difficult to calculate. Second, I did not suggest any predictable utility with a simple average.
said by Oh_No:

People have been paying for that from about 1995 to about 2011

No they have not. Everything is oversold, has been from the beginning, and will continue to be. Your issue now appears to be with capping, which is not how I read your previous posts.
said by Oh_No:

Then why are you defending caps????

When did I defend caps in response to managing congestion?

powerob
@comcast.net

powerob

Anon

Re: Typical

While it is true that all networks are oversold (and always will be), it's not as bad as you think it is.

100Gbps is not a lot of aggregate backbone capacity anymore. It's not atypical for even a mid-sized hosting provider (e.g. FDC Servers) to purchase multiple 10Gbps links. While there are a lot of ways to measure aggregate bandwidth in a complex routed network, it's fair to say that Comcast's customers can pull well more than 100Gbps total from the network, especially if you include CDNs that peer directly with Comcast.

You are right in that Oh_No is completely unrealistic in believing that a consumer-level broadband network could be provided without any over-subscription. If we assume that the average provisioned bandwidth is 15Mbps, then Comcast would need over 250 Tbps of aggregate bandwidth, which is well beyond the capabilities of even the largest broadband providers today.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by powerob :

it's fair to say that Comcast's customers can pull well more than 100Gbps total from the network, especially if you include CDNs that peer directly with Comcast.

I don't know Comcast's bandwidth capacity or peering arrangements, nor do I really care. It was a purely hypothetical suggestion to make a point with Oh_No See Profile...that I apparently failed with. Thank you for adding a little sensibility to the discussion.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Yeah, that's like having a buffet and assuming that each people won't stop at half a plate of food!

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?

I really think that if ISPs are going to make claims like this they need to completely release all of their methods for collecting the data and how they came up with these statistics. If they want to charge per byte, they should be regulated just as gasoline is regulated.

I only see these caps and overages as a way to increase profits for investors. The extra usage does not cost the ISP more to provide.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Typical

said by ArrayList:

I only see these caps and overages as a way to increase profits for investors. The extra usage does not cost the ISP more to provide.

The capping and metering serves to generate revenue and control growth. There is a marginal cost to increasing capacity on fixed infrastructure to a certain level, at which point investment must be made to increase capacity beyond that threshold.

siouxmoux2
@sbcglobal.net

siouxmoux2 to peterwolf

Anon

to peterwolf
If ATT can to It we can as well On the third and subsequent overages, the monthly allowance will be increased in installments of 50 GB at a cost of $10 per installment.
Roofer
join:2010-11-24

Roofer to peterwolf

Member

to peterwolf
In Western Canada, when Shaw tried to impose overage charges, there were mass cancellations. This is the only message that you can send these companies that will work - the bottom line.

And yes, Shaw abandoned the idea.
nauru0
join:2011-02-02

1 recommendation

nauru0

Member

Could be worse.

20 cents per GB is not so bad... here in Canada it's anywhere from $2 to $5 per GB when you reach the cap. Horrible.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: Could be worse.

said by nauru0:

20 cents per GB is not so bad... here in Canada it's anywhere from $2 to $5 per GB when you reach the cap. Horrible.

No cap would be better than no cap. But $.20/GB sounds entirely fair to me.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Could be worse.

$.20/GB is outragous. Exactly how much do you think it costs to provide a GB of service? I'm just spitballing here but I don't think it is even possible to calculate that.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Could be worse.

They're amortizing last-mile plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc. into a single number. Many data centers have overages of 10 cents per GB...and they don't have a last mile coax plant o keep up. Honestly, 20¢ per GB is entirely reasonable.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Could be worse.

plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc do no have anything to do with how much usage goes through them. you can pay for all of that with the monthly fees. If they really want to make this reasonable they will stop jacking the monthly access fees up every 6 months. Heck, maybe even lower it every so often.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Could be worse.

Really? So a link being at 90% capacity has nothing to do with how much usage goes through it...

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Could be worse.

said by iansltx:

Really? So a link being at 90% capacity has nothing to do with how much usage goes through it...

don't think I said that.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Could be worse.

So, because upgrades are a step function you can't smooth out the steps and charge people for their contribution to the need to upgrade? Because while one user at 300GB isn't a big deal on a DOCSIS 3 system, one hundred users at 300GB, plus other people on the node, would probably merit turning on some more DOCSIS QAMs, making a node split, or increasing backhaul...

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to iansltx

Premium Member

to iansltx
said by iansltx:

They're amortizing last-mile plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc. into a single number. Many data centers have overages of 10 cents per GB...and they don't have a last mile coax plant o keep up. Honestly, 20¢ per GB is entirely reasonable.

I have an unlimited seed box for 18 bucks a month. ( just changed providers )

I transferred about 20 TB's last month. My connection does fluctuate, which I guess you could consider a throttle, although its more a matter of running out of capacity I think. Besides even when my connection slows down, its still faster than my old provider.

Way too much competition to go with a data center that has overages.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Could be worse.

Very few people use OVH for anything other than seedboxes from what I've seen. It's also not in the US. Also, as you said, they'll run out of peak capacity at times.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to ArrayList

MVM

to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

$.20/GB is outragous. Exactly how much do you think it costs to provide a GB of service? I'm just spitballing here but I don't think it is even possible to calculate that.

Go price web hosting per GB charges/overages, or go look at what cloud hosting providers charge per GB. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, they are all $.10-.15.

And I never said that $.20 was reasonable compared to what they pay wholesale for their bandwidth. It's reasonable compared to what other commercial companies charge for overages, and far less then what just about every ISP that charges for overages actually charge. I don't keep up what all ISPs charge, but I know I've seen fees of at least $2/GB for some plans.

•••••••••••

DarkRgoue
@suddenlink.net

DarkRgoue

Anon

Suddenlink is stupid.

All I can say is they better not do this. I use around 200 to 300 gigs a month with online game play and youtube and other things like streaming audio channels i have going nearly 24/7 when im awake and I am home. 50 gigs is stupid as with the 10/1.5 teir I can reach that in less then a days time. Now maybee 500 gigs a month might be understandable. Ill I can say is suddenlink better pay attiention or they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

thegeek
Premium Member
join:2008-02-21
right here

thegeek

Premium Member

Fuck

Suddenlink just bought out my previous provider, NPG Cable, late last year. So far I have been ok with Suddenlink, although they constantly call trying to get me to sign up for phone service even though I tell them to stop calling. I typically download over 1TB a month. I guess I'll have to end up switching to a business account now.
Rob_
Premium Member
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL

Rob_

Premium Member

Re: Fuck

you hit the nail right on the coffin, ISP's want to remove residential service (hence the hard caps) so, all their customers will have a business account.

welcome to the controlled internet, soon, we won't even have a 256 gig, we will be charged for what we use.. than, the internet will slowly die.

DarkRgoue
@suddenlink.net

DarkRgoue

Anon

Part of the usage faq

Does Suddenlink plan to set a maximum usage allowance for its Internet customers, like other companies are doing? Do you plan to charge extra if a customer's usage is too high?

Those steps are not part of our current plan. Our only goal at this time is to help the few customers whose usage is well above (approximately double) the high end of the typical range to identify the reasons why and take steps to protect and secure their computers and accounts.

This is on suddenlinks usage faq page from their site. They forgot to read their own site.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Until they say what the cap is; outrage is misplaced

Nothing in any of the links say what the cap will be. If it is 250GB/mo like Comcast and with the posted overage fees, this would be a reasonable plan.

••••••••
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Funny how mobile data is 50X more expensive

Do the mobile companies expect us to believe their bullshit?
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

2012 make or break year..

either these cap nonsene policies die or the drumbeat for regulation/reform is going to start.. the 2 wire duopoly and 1 wire monopoly is no longer adequate competition for the ISP last mile marketplace in a majority of the country.
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

chgo_man99

Member

Were goibg back to aol times

Pretty much reverse trend.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

"Steep Overages"?

Twenty cents per gigabyte?

Really, Karl?

••••••

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer

Premium Member

Wow

Welcome to the new internet. Same as the old internet. Only, you know, costs twice as much.

Good to see our American neighbour's telecom counterparts are every bit the parasitic scumbag creatures our Canadian incumbents are.

Good luck. You're going to need it, and a good law firm to deal with those illegal meters.

Mike

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

SimbaSeven

Member

Crap..

Looks like I have to watch how much traffic goes through the VPN connection between Muskogee and Billings (me).

Crap.. At least it's my wife's grandparents.. They don't use much traffic anyway. Still sucks, though.
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

rahvin112

Member

The war they won't talk about.

All part of the war on cord cutters that the cable TV execs won't talk about. This is all an attempt to prevent cord cutting, and penalize those who do, I expect it will backfire.
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os

Member

Told You So

A few months ago, I remember in the Suddenlink forums telling you that usage meters were step 1 to usage-based billing.

You called me a troll. Who's laughing now?

Considering what Suddenlink was considering normal usage, I expect these to be the worst caps we've seen from a major ISP in the US. Caps lower than AT&T. What a choice they'll have in TX.

And for the people almost standing up and cheering for this (there's way too many of them in here), well, enjoy them when they come to you. This has nothing to do with economic reality, it has to do with a largely complacent customer base, 90% of which can't even tell you what a byte is. It is our responsibility to be vocal in opposition because the rest of the populace won't get it.

Corporations have killed everything. Now they want the internet. Isn't the future great?

shelby10763
join:2005-03-12
Greenville, NC

shelby10763

Member

STC had updated their story:

»stopthecap.com/2011/09/3 ··· comment/

The usage caps, which will first be implemented on customers in Amarillo, Tex., are as follows:

150GB per month for customers subscribing to “lite” tiers of less than 10Mbps, similar to what AT&T limits its DSL customers;
250GB per month for 10, 15, or 20Mbps customers, similar to AT&T U-verse;
350GB per month for premium-priced 50 or 107Mbps service packages.
AricBrown
join:2002-12-11
Amarillo, TX

AricBrown

Member

Re: STC had updated their story:

said by shelby10763:

»stopthecap.com/2011/09/3 ··· comment/

The usage caps, which will first be implemented on customers in Amarillo, Tex., are as follows:

150GB per month for customers subscribing to “lite” tiers of less than 10Mbps, similar to what AT&T limits its DSL customers;
250GB per month for 10, 15, or 20Mbps customers, similar to AT&T U-verse;
350GB per month for premium-priced 50 or 107Mbps service packages.

So on my 25meg plan it will take me 27.7 hours to reach my cap and wow if I am on the 107 plan it will take me a whopping 9 hours to reach my cap...

BS .. The first time I am charged an overage I plan on filing a complaint with the Texas Agriculture Department.

I mean they measure accuracy in my gas I buy, in the electricity I use, in the natural gas I use.. Hell in the weight of the apples I buy.. Its all regulated. How do I know if Suddenlink isnt putting their thumb on the scale. Texas law says I have a right to accurate measurements.
AricBrown

AricBrown

Member

Yeah.. Suddenlink is going to enhance my internet experience

Early next month, October 2011, Suddenlink will notify residential (non-business) Internet customers in Amarillo, Texas, of a new usage allowance plan (AP) that is designed to further enhance their Internet experience.
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os

Member

Re: Yeah.. Suddenlink is going to enhance my internet experience

Early next month, October 2011, Suddenlink will notify residential (non-business) Internet customers in Amarillo, Texas, of a new usage allowance plan (AP) that is designed to further enhance their bottom line.

Properly fixed.

Those caps could be worse (Cox and Charter's light tiers), but there's no necessity for them. It's a money grab, plain and simple.

I don't see how all of these companies can enforce meters that are not regulated and proven accurate by anyone else. That's what is going to get them in trouble here.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

hmm

if those are the actual caps, then they are FAR more generous than what the warning letter was crying at me for. originally it told me the average usage for someone on 10 megs was around 45 gigs / month (can't find the letter, must have deleted it).

i watch a lot of netflix in hd streaming and i usually stream about 1 season of tv shows a week and average about 100 gigs. i'm not thrilled to see caps AT all, but vs the original "soft cap" the letters warned of, this is a lot better.

though i also think that for a 100 meg account, anything below 500gigs is ridiculous. you're paying out the butt to begin with, if it were me i would def. want room to use it.
moldypickle

moldypickle

Premium Member

Re: hmm

also just finished reading all the "leaked" docs, noticed they reference a letter being mailed to the house a few weeks before it's active. would love to see this letter!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Suddenstink

Why is fucking over your subs always done in the name of "enhancing the user experience"?

SuddenWhat
@suddenlink.net

SuddenWhat

Anon

RE: Suddenlink Caps

We damn sure DON'T have to worry about using too much bandwidth in Bastrop, La. It would take you 3 months to do that. SUDDENLINK in Bastrop, La. is SUDDENLY UN-LINKED. They have had to contract another company out to come to Bastrop & try to fix things. But it's no use. So many people are just waiting for them to go under. They come to your house & say they can't find anything wrong but you are still left paying for 10-787 but you are NOWHERE near 10. It's usually 4-5/740-50. Many people are already going to AT&T. It's cheaper not faster. But at least you get what you pay for there. I truly hope this company sinks. Cox Communications did alot better than Suddenly Un-Linked. And as for their HD channels. Their seldom ever come in. We have to DVR a show on the regular channel instead of HD. One of the guys contracted out told us that they had the wires & cables all bunched together & he couldn't see how anything was working. So one of our good friends took his advice & went to AT&T for her internet. She likes it. So there are several more of us getting ready to make the move.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA

moldypickle

Premium Member

Re: Suddenlink Caps

suddenlink seems to have the misfortune of continuously taking over small time failed cable plants and then having to deal with the mess left behind. in my area, everything but the pricing has been nearly perfect.
kerya666
join:2002-12-20
Valrico, FL

kerya666

Member

Re: Suddenlink Caps

They should officialy rename themselves into SuddenCap
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Bad, but

It's a lot better than Comcast and others that will just cut you off.
page: 1 · 2 · next