DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs: | Yes
Squash please. Its simple. Overcap people. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| Absolutely!!!
You should get what you pay for otherwise don't say its 6mb DSL line and (best effort). I like that gasoline explanation. You pay what you get for as advertised not best effort. Your neighbor just happens to get 5.1mb were sorry best effort Bell says you can only get 4.3mb. Worst off you pay the same rate.
At least cable is somewhat consistent with there advertised speeds. But the prices is a can of worms. Yuck! |
|
LiberalKing
Intocable
Premium
join:2005-09-12
Bronx, NY
1 edit | Cablevision invented the "up-to" fraud
.
--
|
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Maybe the US should take note...
We have the same problem here from the Cable & DSL providers. Everyone likes to you tell you "ultra fast" but neglect the "technically best effort" fine text.
When I got my DSL, they only promised 1.5M/bps download because I was so far away from the CO and 768 K/bps Upload. I accepted that and at least they are keeping that promise. I have too many Friends that wanted faster DSL/Cable and the speeds were no where what was promised by the sales teams. A big shock? |
|
BUYaCLUEnow
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
mrchris 
| Any reputable provider would offer a guaranteed Minimum...
...speed but of course then they'd be obligated to actually provide it on a reliable bases. That's like expecting MICROSUCKS to deliver a reliable O/S. Ain't gonna happen in this life. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | One of two results
Either they'll start guaranteeing your speeds and charge you a helluva lot more for it, or they'll stop offering you speeds they can't guarantee you'll get.
Which of those scenarios is gonna make everybody happy? |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | reply to BUYaCLUEnow
Re: Any reputable provider would offer a guaranteed Minimum...
Oh please, register once and for all! |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Where is the popcorn?
This is going to be an interesting fight.
In this corner, wearing the ID badges and phone headsets, THE ISP techs. In the other corner, with checkbooks and modems, the consumers.
The ISP techs will argue you need shut up and pay or find someone else, we don't need you bandwidth hogs. If you want anything better, get a T1.
The consumers are sick of the double speak, bad service, slow speeds and phone techs who blame the customer computers and never their own network.
Face it, this fight will go on and on until their is some real competition (not the monopoly or duopoly that exists now.) Companies deserve to make a profit but not at the expense of the consumer. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to DaMaGeINC
Re: Yes
said by DaMaGeINC :Squash please. Its simple. Overcap people. Not quite. What about the people on DSL who are capped at 1.5Mbps and only get 800Kbps? Raising the cap to 100Mbps won't matter.
Same with cable.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Surfinusa
Re: Absolutely!!!
You're not paying for 6M all the time, every time- read the TOS and promotional materials where they say "up to".
You may feel that it should be a solid 6M, but that's not what you were offered. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Buyer Beware is still the best policy
And those who ignore that deserve what happens to them. It is all part of the dumbing down of America where you don't fend for yourself but depend on Nanny Gov't to watch over you.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Gas? No. Speed limit, more accurate
You're not fueling (provisioning) your travel from point to point (on the Internet) with your own equipment. You are renting time on the telco or cable company equipment, buying in monthly increments of usage.
Using the Internet is like traveling a highway. Everybody shares the highway (the Internet.) Due to agreements between states (Internet peering agreements), the roads intersect and allow traffic to go between states (Internet Major Points of Presence). At the local level (your home to your telephone office) you have slower roads. When everyone gets on the highway (Internet), traffic goes slower. When the roads (outside physical plant wires) aren't rated for highway speeds (excessive interference, poor wires) OR if you are forced to use the backroads because you can't afford to take the toll road (T1, T3, OC3, etc) or get to the toll road (no remote terminal, no fiber to the neighborhood, poor infrastructure), you are stuck going at the slower speeds (DSL, Cable, or even a fraction of cable or DSL).
I think that using the speed limit analogy shows that broadband should be considered a utility, not a commodity.
Is broadband a commodity that should be traded on the open market, or a utility that we all should be sharing responsibility for equally? As I've demonstrated, the analogy you come up with matches what you think people's perception of that item should be.
If you want the infrastructure upgraded, you would probably consider broadband a utility.
If you already have good infrastructure to your home, or you're just not aware of the bigger picture of the Internet, you'll want as much speed as possible as cheap as you can get it, so you'd want it to be considered a commodity.
--justbits |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Where is the popcorn?
said by moonpuppy :Face it, this fight will go on and on until their is some real competition (not the monopoly or duopoly that exists now.) Companies deserve to make a profit but not at the expense of the consumer. And at who's expense should the make a profit from if not the consumers who, you know, pay the bills?
To suggest that cable and telco providers aren't actively competing against each other is absurd, especially in light of increased speed offerings and price reductions of the past year or so. |
|
Sean
join:2004-01-23
Ottawa
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to dynodb
Re: Absolutely!!!
said by dynodb :You're not paying for 6M all the time, every time- read the TOS and promotional materials where they say "up to". You may feel that it should be a solid 6M, but that's not what you were offered. If you had the capacity to understand what was going on, you would realize that the debate is OVER the technicality. No one cares what the TOS says. What matters is what it is that you APPEAR to be buying.
The whole point in this is, there shouldn't be any misrepresentation. |
|
DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs: | reply to Matt
Re: Yes
Well, DSL is crippled. And I could care less about it. Im not too worried about people who are too far away. Im worried about the 90% of people who are within the spec. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dynodb
Re: Where is the popcorn?
said by dynodb :And at who's expense should the make a profit from if not the consumers who, you know, pay the bills? Paying the bills is one thing. Making obscene profits is another. Not to mention, spending most of tour efforts barring any competition.
said by dynodb :To suggest that cable and telco providers aren't actively competing against each other is absurd, especially in light of increased speed offerings and price reductions of the past year or so. Really? How many areas have 2 cable systems? How many have FTTH and cable competing with one another? Not many and for years, cable companies have enjoyed a monopoly. DSL is a joke and the telcos sent that out without any real thought. Fiber is becoming the new thing however, the only telco really pushing it is Verizon.
And what price reductions? Certainly not from cable.  |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08 | reply to dynodb
Re: Absolutely!!!
Always read before you post! |
|
srobmw
join:2005-10-01
New Windsor, NY | reply to justbits
Re: Gas? No. Speed limit, more accurate
Well said. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Another *YAWN*
Between bad metaphors and over hyped expectations this story looks very familiar.
As far as the "gallon of gas" metaphor, that is a physical measurement that does not depend on any variables. Internet speed at your modem depends on many variables that may or may not be under the control of the line provider, the ISP, or your credit card company, at least not without sinking a lot more money into it than you are worth. Yes it is misleading, and yes they (line provider and/or ISP) should be more clear about it other than posting the raves of best served user as an example.
My 2 cents/centavos/yen/penningen/farthings/won/? worth.
If you are expecting the US government to do something, don't. I have worked too many government projects where a unit has a certain specification and the contractor limits all the good stuff to be exactly the spec but gets waivers for all that they can't/won't meet. The internet will most likely not be treated any differently than any other federal program, and all the whining of people on sites like this will be nothing more than the whine of a midge in a boiler factory. Now if you had some way to ensure the congress-it of your choice would not get reelected if some useful change was made, then that would be a different story.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| No easy answer
Both sides- the broadband providers and consumer advocates- have valid points, but there's no simple answer here.
While the providers advertise their service as "up to X meg", I can understand why some would be frustrated that they weren't getting the full "up to" speed, especially when they often weren't told in advance what they'd actually get.
From the provider standpoint, you'd have to severely overbuild your network at much greater expense and/or test each and every line before it's even ordered to see what it can support.
In addition, nearly every aspect of pretty much every provider's network- and the entire Internet for that matter- is oversubscribed. It would only take a fraction of total customers to download a file simultaneously before both the provider and ISP facilities were maxed out.
The simplistic answer espoused by many BBR posters would be "just invest in more capacity you big greedy corporations!", but that comes at a price that must be passed on to customers if they are to make a profit- there's a reason that a 1.536M dedicated T1 costs $400/month while DSL and cable cost roughly one tenth that. Without oversubscription (which practically every provider large and small relies on), that simply wouldn't be the case.
Is it reasonable for a customer to expect the maximum "up to" speed 24/7 for $40/month? No. Is it reasonable to a provider to consistanly deliver far less speed than the full rate their line can support? No.
For now, subscribers should get used to the idea of "up to" a certain speed, while providers should work to make sure reasonable customer expectations are met. |
|
