openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
2 edits | reply to dadkins
Re: Unlimited...
I think a lot fewer people would have problems with the limited "unlimited" service if ISPs openly advertised their caps and explained their processes for throttling. The unscrupulous act of allowing customers to believe the facade of unlimited access data transfer and then smacking them down with caps and/or throttling tends to leave really bad tastes in consumers' mouths. Personally, I'm all for a 100/100 connection to the Internet if I know that I can download whatever and however much as I want up to a predefined and advertised cap (e.g. 50GB/mth, 100GB/mth, etc.). If I go over the cap, throttle me, disconnect me, or charge me more as long as I know in advance. Hell, bill me at the 95th percentile that most ISPs themselves are billed at. |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| said by openbox9  :I think a lot fewer people would have problems with the limited "unlimited" service if ISPs openly advertised their caps and explained their processes for throttling. The unscrupulous act of allowing customers to believe the facade of unlimited access data transfer and then smacking them down with caps and/or throttling tends to leave really bad tastes in consumers' mouths. Personally, I'm all for a 100/100 connection to the Internet if I know that I can download whatever and however much as I want up to a predefined and advertised cap (e.g. 50GB/mth, 100GB/mth, etc.). If I go over the cap, throttle me, disconnect me, or charge me more as long as I know in advance. Hell, bill me at the 95th percentile that most ISPs themselves are billed at. There are no caps as some areas may have a lot of room for users to download big files and other ones where are to meny users and thay will slow down other if they down load at the full spped of the link all the time. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Well, that's an engineering problem. If you build the network correctly, this isn't an issue. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :I think a lot fewer people would have problems with the limited "unlimited" service if ISPs openly advertised their caps and explained their processes for throttling. ... the truth is most people don't care as they are not affected by this.. so, WHO are those PEOPLE that would feel better with knowing the caps? Heavy duty and over the top users which is not considered typical residential use.
Again, most consumers simply don't care and are not affected by this in the first place.
Even if you gave people the ability to pay for cap overages, you'd still have a network degrading problem. The ONLY thing that I personally see as a solution is to throttle their speeds back to what most residential people really need to average use.. a 512k or 768K line for the remainder of the month. Throttling the users account would be, in my opinion, fair!
With throttling, they can't clog the node any more, yet they can still run full open without affecting the node, and still, websites, email, mp3 downloads, are generally not affected. If they STILL complain about that? If they complain that it's hurting them and they need to run their modems full open 24/7 and download gobs of data, then it simply proves they are not using the service with in the terms it was designed.
One other thing that people need to remember, and understand, it's a good thing to get back to is this.. Advertising and Terms of services are two different things. An advertisement is meant to attract the consumer.. the TOS is what you are selling. People want to confuse the ad with the contract.. Rent a U-Haul truck based on the ad alone and not read what you are agreeing to. Down the road when you have a problem, you and your attorney can work together to minimize your damages. (I will agree that the ad should be honest, but no where in the ads are they selling unlimited transfer)
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to openbox9
»youtube.com/watch?v=ubc7zFSyEbg# |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :Throttling the users account would be, in my opinion, fair! That is what these folks think...
»www.netequalizer.com/
--
A is A |
|
js1
@swbell.net
| reply to openbox9
Sounds like if they actually do have to "throttle" a user's access, they probably aren't building/maintaining their network properly in the first place. It just seems to be common sense if you have a certain number of users, you should be able to handle the load. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :the truth is most people don't care as they are not affected by this.. Then there is no downside to specifying, in the advertising, in a typeface you don't need a magnifying glass to read:
"Use of the service is subject to data transfer limits and if you exceed those limits your access will be curtailed or terminated without notice."
I mean, if nobody cares and they won't be affected, why not come clean up front?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
cubsfan
join:2007-02-23
Shreveport, LA
| reply to John Galt
Making any limitations clear seems fair to me, too. Believe it or not, a lot of people who are hogging bandwidth have no idea they're doing it. They either don't understand the internet at all or don't know that their file sharing programs are also uploading material from them. As far as I'm concerned, a netequalizer type solution might not be a bad idea on a larger scale. Let people know that their music/movie/tvshow downloads will receive lower priority when the network is congested. In many cases, this will bring the issue to their attention for the first time and probably motivate them to be more conscious. |
|
