Mediacom I think you're giving them too much credit. Shortly after the e-mail notifications started rolling in, the thread popped up here and numerous on Mediacom's support forums. It took a while for their social media team to have their talking points regurgitated to them, but they now include the "This doesn't affect 97% of users" line, showing they went with the approach of claiming if you happen to use Netflix, Hulu, etc instead of Mediacom's content, you're the anomaly.
Additionally, since Mediacom's infrastructure is so underdeveloped in areas, if you can't get their Ultra tier, you are stuck with a much more restrictive cap.
The final gem on the top of this change is that you have to sign up for a separate e-mail address with Mediacom to even view your usage, and so far even know they are making this change (though they have stated they will send snail mail letters at some point). The account that you use to view/pay your bill online is not connected to viewing the meter.
said by GLIMMER:In most areas, it depends on whos there. Here, they have 2 areas of service, and one of them has CenturyLink, and the other has Centurylink(labeled Qwest). No one has even heard of AT&T or Verizon DSL up here, and is only familiar with their Wireless services. everyone has heard about how mediacom is the shittiest company around tho.
its frontier in most areas
| || |Don't get me wrong, I still think their justifications are crap, they're just slightly less crap than other justifications I've seen, where the carrier insists that paying more "improves your customer experience," or trots out the congestion bogeyman even though the industry itself has admitted congestion isn't an issue and isn't why they're doing this.
I think you're giving them too much credit. Shortly after the e-mail notifications started rolling in, the thread popped up here and numerous on Mediacom's support forums. It took a while for their social media team to have their talking points regurgitated to them, but they now include the "This doesn't affect 97% of users" line, showing they went with the approach of claiming if you happen to use Netflix, Hulu, etc instead of Mediacom's content, you're the anomaly.
Re: Mediacom Too bad. Never mind then, I'll edit the piece, thanks. Socking customers with these hikes is one thing, but insulting customer intelligence just adds insult to injury.
Re: Mediacom I agree, for what it's worth. Personally, I don't really need a 50mbps line (but respect people who do), but like you say it's the cost you pay for the cap that you do need. I also personally think that 1TB is a reasonable cap (again, your mileage may vary). That part is OK, but the problem is when they don't offer their Ultra tier in many areas (well, that and insulting our intelligence with such transparent lies as to why they are adding caps). Though that said, like you say, there are worse companies out there, for now.
Re: Mediacom Whether a cap is "reasonable" doesn't really change the fact that these companies are using a lack of competition to impose rate hikes on already pricey tiers (by global developed country standards). They can already push excessive users on to business tiers. All these caps do is encourage upselling and abuse, especially if your only competitor is a low-quality DSL provider that offers capped 3 Mbps DSL.
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
Re: Mediacom There is a positive correlation between the speed of someone's connection and the amount of data that they transfer over it, probably because there's a positive correlation between price and amount of transfer used, all else equal.
Yes, caps low enough that people hit them are a revenue source. If you don't like it, you should build your own ISP and find out what the cost of last-mile bandwidth really is. The same economies of scale that make you reluctant to do that also allow Mediacom to come up with a number that represents the overall cost per GB that crosses their network, and it's not as close to zero as you might think.
Also, in an ideal world (not saying this is happening with Mediacom) higher-end users pay for the network upgrades for the node. A bunch of 10M users would probably be just fine with a couple of DOCSIS channels bonded per node. Add in a few 50M and 105M high-end folks and you now need four, six or even eight channels. Those line cards cost money. So Mediacom matches incremental revenue to incremental expenses and makes a profit.
Would they be able to add in as much profit in a more competitive environment? Nope. But it's downright scary to become a new competitor in wireline communications, unless you're coming in with a tech that others can't match without significant effort. Marginal costs for the incumbent, sans upgrades, are just too low. So it takes someone with balls like Google to do this these days.
| As far as caps, one day, it will be the norm for all companies. What will ISPs do when speeds are so fast, and wireless tech reaches so far, that one subscriber can open his network for his entire street? So, on this persons wifi, hes supplying IPTV / Torrents, data, and VoIP for everyone. Todays speeds are tomorrows dialup, and the ISPs wont be able to allow 1 subscriber on each street.|
The only way to prevent such misuse is usage billing.
Breaking a TOS? Yea, that works real well, and good luck enforcing it.
| |said by Klarth:+1
I think you're giving them too much credit.
If this was really about reducing impact on other users...
... they would have gone to tiered throttling.
"We have a small subset of customers that are using a very large portion of the available bandwidth, which can have a negative impact on the other internet users in the surrounding area," says a Mediacom employee in our forums reading from a script. "By curbing this behavior, other customers can benefit with faster speeds."
Heavy downloader hits ___GB, throttle to 75%. Next ___GB, throttle to 50%. And so forth, until they're down to a couple of Mbps.
Just follow the money trail. It's more profitable to bill for overages than throttle down heavy users.
| |P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
way way out
WE have a small amount of people using what they pay for.... so we must put a stop to that
Regulation? So because GAS and POWER and WATER get regulated because they are by usage when does internet get proper regulation to guarantee that the data is accurate?
What's to stop you from using 200GB and them saying 300GB and your cap is 250?? Monitoring it yourself is useless too because it's your word vs. them. They will claim your cheap router or firewall PC doesn't compare to the 100k equipment they use that is inaccurate.
Where does it end?
How is this any different from me opening a store, selling something for $5 and I say, well you still owe me one more $1 even though you gave me $5.. It should be just as much of a crime...
To make caps more fun, I can make your usage climb with you having nothing turned on but your modem... Just flood it with useless traffic... Like already happens on the net... It's like paying for spam text messages when you pay per msg.
Re: Regulation? pretty much how i feel
if they want to have metered service then they must be classed as a ultiltiy and regulated as such and meters must be checked just each states weights and measures just like all other meters used for sales
Congestion, and monthy data allotments. So I now have a data allotment I'll just use that allotment during prime-time (7 pm till 11 pm), and everyone else uses their allotment during prime-time.. You still have network congestion.
This is criminal I live in Harvest, AL.. I'm lucky to get 1-3mb/s down during the day and speed jumps up at 8-9pm to 20mb/s. They WILL hit you with the cap, I want to say I've gone over once or twice. I've talked to my county commissioner to ask for some sort of initiative to get Knology to go 2 more miles north to reach my subdivision and his secretary jokes "oh wow I have Mediacom too, I've never seen a Mediacom truck to fix their crappy internet service." After three years of modem swaps, support calls, the support calls in which they never show, testing the lines to my house, etc., I still have issues. An engineer told me that they have 20 year old nodes and nobody will pay to upgrade them. It's so bad that everyone knows that when the temp changes to start spamming calls to customer support as resistance on the line changes and you can watch upstream signals on modems jump to 55 dbmv, yet nothing ever changes. Working over VPN is a crapshoot, Xbox Live gets laggy all the time, etc.
They're criminals. I have no pity for them to see some other provider come in and take their business. I'd use DSL but AT&T could only max out at like 3mb/s.. not enough for concurrent use of Netflix, VPN, etc. I'm hoping this company gets sued into oblivion and acquired by a company with more competence.