how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
421 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cingular Wireless
| if you pay for what works, why pay more? If the ISPs are currently providing customers with speeds that match the "up to" it would be wrong to charge them more. However, for customers that aren't getting those sppeds they should back them down to a lower plan. The onus is to the ISPs to better check the quality of their networks, not gouge the customer to make up for their laziness. | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by inteller:If the ISPs are currently providing customers with speeds that match the "up to" it would be wrong to charge them more. However, for customers that aren't getting those sppeds they should back them down to a lower plan. The onus is to the ISPs to better check the quality of their networks, not gouge the customer to make up for their laziness. It's not laziness, it's affordability. Sure the provider could overhaul their entire network and offer guaranteed speeds. It would cost a helluva lot more than you want to pay, though. Thus the compromise that exists today. Affordable high speed internet that usually performs pretty much as advertised. | |
intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
| you missed my point, if they currently deliver "up to" speeds consistently to a majority of their customers, there is no overhaul needed, just a continued reliability in existing service. For customers who never met those speeds, find out what the max speed they do get consistently and price them at that tier. | |
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | somehow i don't see them downgrading users while they are policing themselves. | |
 BuriedCaesarIt's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX | reply to inteller
said by inteller:For customers who never met those speeds, find out what the max speed they do get consistently and price them at that tier. You mean - perhaps these companies should instead be required to sell tiers at "no less than" speeds?
So you'll pay $$$ per month and the provider will have to guarantee that you will receive, at any given time when you're connected, NOT LESS THAN XX.XXbs for downloads/uploads?
That would work for me.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by BuriedCaesar:said by inteller:For customers who never met those speeds, find out what the max speed they do get consistently and price them at that tier. You mean - perhaps these companies should instead be required to sell tiers at "no less than" speeds? So you'll pay $$$ per month and the provider will have to guarantee that you will receive, at any given time when you're connected, NOT LESS THAN XX.XXbs for downloads/uploads? That would work for me. If you're willing to pay for "no less than" 256k for the price you're paying for 1.5 meg today, or "no less than" 1.5 for 6meg, etc. But ask yourself why should they have to advertise a minimum speed, if the vast majority of their customers are receiving the "up to" speeds being advertised today?
For those not receiving what they pay for, then either A: Get it fixed B: Pick a slower speed that they can support, or C: Get credit for sub-par service. All three of those are valid options available today.
Sheesh. Let's regulate every stinkin' thing we can think of while we're at it. After all, government always knows best. | | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to inteller
said by inteller:you missed my point, if they currently deliver "up to" speeds consistently to a majority of their customers, ...says you. Yet another "as I see it" being played into "the way it is"...
a continued reliability in existing service. Are you talking about reliability? Uptime? or Speeds? If it's reliability you speak up, let's have that conversation. But, they are advertising "up to" and "broadband".. and in case we all forgot, what is the "LEGALLY DEFINED SPEED" for broadband in this country? They sell broadband with speeds that, if all conditions are right, can get up to..
For customers who never met those speeds, find out what the max speed they do get consistently and price them at that tier. So, like we've said before... charge a metered service.. if anyone knew anything about networks, they speed up and slow down all the time - even corporate LANS can slow and speed up.
The bottom line is that this silly rant by the FTC won't change anything for the better.. if anything, it will not change ANYTHING, or if anything, screw it up for the masses.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
BuriedCaesarIt's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX | reply to RJ44
said by RJ44:If you're willing to pay for "no less than" 256k for the price you're paying for 1.5 meg today, or "no less than" 1.5 for 6meg, etc. But ask yourself why should they have to advertise a minimum speed, if the vast majority of their customers are receiving the "up to" speeds being advertised today? For those not receiving what they pay for, then either A: Get it fixed B: Pick a slower speed that they can support, or C: Get credit for sub-par service. All three of those are valid options available today. Sheesh. Let's regulate every stinkin' thing we can think of while we're at it. After all, government always knows best. How sure are you that the "vast majority" of people who have an "up-to" speed actually get what they pay for?
Why can't a ISP's just be more up-front and a tad bit more accurate about what they can and cannot provide and then actually provide what they advertise rather than being obfuscatory and vague about it?
As for those "options", good luck getting a credit for that sub-par service, especially in light of all the "up-to" contract phraseology, or even trying to convince them it needs to be fixed for the very same reason.
("Can you get to the internet? Yes? Then it's fixed, right? We didn't guarantee you a certain speed, it's a speed that one day you might be able to get "up to", but by then you'll probably have to pay more for it, and, oh, yeah, that'll come with a new, higher "up to" speed that you'll never get "up to" either.")
And in the world of opposites, there's that "pick a slower speed that they can support" option. Huh? Are you saying that someone should go out and find a plan where they can pay less for another "up-to" option that provides less speed than their current "up-to" option where they hope the slower speed might be closer to the "up-to" limit than what they currently get? Oooookay. That sure seems like a helluva lot more hassle and headache than viable long-term solution to me.
And lest anyone believe otherwise, I'd prefer LESS government intervention. 
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
2 edits | said by BuriedCaesar:[How sure are you that the "vast majority" of people who have an "up-to" speed actually get what they pay for? Very. Thanks for asking 
said by BuriedCaesar:Why can't a ISP's just be more up-front and a tad bit more accurate about what they can and cannot provide and then actually provide what they advertise rather than being obfuscatory and vague about it? Because they're trying to provide affordable high speed internet. The only way to be certain what they can and can't provide is to provide it and see how it goes. Or, to condition every single line to insure that it will provide optimal speeds. The second option costs money, which brings us right back to how much more do you want to pay for the guarantee?
IMO they aren't being obfuscatory and vague. They're being realistic. *Most* people will receive just about what their "up to" speeds are advertised as. At least, most customers of a reputable ISP will.
If you want guaranteed speeds, look into a service with an SLA. And pay careful attention to the price... | |
BuriedCaesarIt's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX | said by RJ44:said by BuriedCaesar:[How sure are you that the "vast majority" of people who have an "up-to" speed actually get what they pay for? Very. Thanks for asking said by BuriedCaesar:Why can't a ISP's just be more up-front and a tad bit more accurate about what they can and cannot provide and then actually provide what they advertise rather than being obfuscatory and vague about it? Because they're trying to provide affordable high speed internet. The only way to be certain what they can and can't provide is to provide it and see how it goes. Or, to condition every single line to insure that it will provide optimal speeds. The second option costs money, which brings us right back to how much more do you want to pay for the guarantee? IMO they aren't being obfuscatory and vague. They're being realistic. *Most* people will receive just about what their "up to" speeds are advertised as. At least, most customers of a reputable ISP will. If you want guaranteed speeds, look into a service with an SLA. And pay careful attention to the price... So, I'm curious, what do you make of this story?
»Charter Quietly Downgrading Customers?
Is this "realistic" behavior? Does this mean that Charter should not be considered "reputable" as an ISP as a result?
I'm glad to learn you're "very" sure about what you say - can you be more specific as to what you mean by "Vast Majority" and "*Most* people" getting what they pay for? Descriptors like that seem more vague than helpful and could represent a whole range of values at any given time, sort of like expected connection speeds.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by BuriedCaesar:said by RJ44:said by BuriedCaesar:[How sure are you that the "vast majority" of people who have an "up-to" speed actually get what they pay for? Very. Thanks for asking said by BuriedCaesar:Why can't a ISP's just be more up-front and a tad bit more accurate about what they can and cannot provide and then actually provide what they advertise rather than being obfuscatory and vague about it? Because they're trying to provide affordable high speed internet. The only way to be certain what they can and can't provide is to provide it and see how it goes. Or, to condition every single line to insure that it will provide optimal speeds. The second option costs money, which brings us right back to how much more do you want to pay for the guarantee? IMO they aren't being obfuscatory and vague. They're being realistic. *Most* people will receive just about what their "up to" speeds are advertised as. At least, most customers of a reputable ISP will. If you want guaranteed speeds, look into a service with an SLA. And pay careful attention to the price... So, I'm curious, what do you make of this story? » Charter Quietly Downgrading Customers?Is this "realistic" behavior? Does this mean that Charter should not be considered "reputable" as an ISP as a result? Feel free to form your own opinion of Charter HSI and their practices. I can promise you, if they were my ISP and it happened to me, I'd either A: Call and get it fixed, B: Get a credit for the downgrade in service, or C: Drop them and find a better ISP. Or possibly 2 of the 3 options.said by BuriedCaesar:I'm glad to learn you're "very" sure about what you say - can you be more specific as to what you mean by "Vast Majority" and "*Most* people" getting what they pay for? Descriptors like that seem more vague than helpful and could represent a whole range of values at any given time, sort of like expected connection speeds. "Vast Majority" and "Most" have very specific definitions, feel free to use a dictionary if necessary. The actual numbers would of course change depending on the overall population being discussed. However, I'm of the opinion that there isn't a widespread problem. If you feel there is, perhaps you could (should?) quote some specific numbers to prove your assertion that a problem exists. | |
BuriedCaesarIt's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX | said by RJ44:"Vast Majority" and "Most" have very specific definitions, feel free to use a dictionary if necessary. The actual numbers would of course change depending on the overall population being discussed. However, I'm of the opinion that there isn't a widespread problem. If you feel there is, perhaps you could (should?) quote some specific numbers to prove your assertion that a problem exists. It appears our opinions have no course but to remain divergent.
There are some flaws in your last post, though. The exact phrase "vast majority" has no "very specific" definition, as you assert. Separately, yes, the two words each have their own dictionary definition, but together? Nope. Sorry. I'm reasonably confident you'll not find any official dictionary entry with a definition for that specific phrase. You are welcome to prove me wrong - ISBN and page number would be helpful.
Not that I didn't try - I found this interesting explanation of "vast majority" - »www.everything2.com/index.pl?nod···majority - not exactly a ringing endorsement for the use of the phrase without anything more solid to back it up...
And while "most" does have a specific definition, you clearly used it as a modifier to "people" - which is yet another difficult-to-define phrase, and still implies a numerical amount of people of some indeterminate value, and is highly dependent upon interpretation, as you so aptly put.
From my perspective, both phrases will always be vague by their very nature and in the grand scheme of trying to understand a complex issue, provide no real support for a compelling or persuasive position. You typed the phrases first as a basis for your claim, and I requested clarification, so it's squarely in your court to provide some measure of context for furthering the discussion, if you wish.
Otherwise, I'm of the opinion my first sentence in this post will stand.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by BuriedCaesar:[There are some flaws in your last post, though. The exact phrase "vast majority" has no "very specific" definition, as you assert. Separately, yes, the two words each have their own dictionary definition, but together? Nope. Sorry. I'm reasonably confident you'll not find any official dictionary entry with a definition for that specific phrase. Oh good grief. You're obviously an intelligent person. Look up the definition of vast. Look up the definition of majority. 1+1 = 2. Maybe a little common sense is in order here, no need to try to make it seem vague when it isn't.
You can argue semantics all you like if it will help you avoid the facts, but the truth is this is another overblown "problem" being hyped by crusaders out to save the world from itself.
I do agree with the part of your post where you said it appears we aren't going to reach agreement on this. I just didn't want to let that last attempt at being "cute" on your part go by without responding. | |
BuriedCaesarIt's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX | said by RJ44:Oh good grief. You're obviously an intelligent person. Look up the definition of vast. Look up the definition of majority. 1+1 = 2. Maybe a little common sense is in order here, no need to try to make it seem vague when it isn't. You can argue semantics all you like if it will help you avoid the facts, but the truth is this is another overblown "problem" being hyped by crusaders out to save the world from itself. I do agree with the part of your post where you said it appears we aren't going to reach agreement on this. I just didn't want to let that last attempt at being "cute" on your part go by without responding. You're absolutely right. This indeed turned into bluster about semantics, when all I asked for was what I believed to be a simple request for greater clarification and ended up on a long, drawn-out sidetrack. And, well, here we both are without much of anything to show for it, since you're finishing up by talking about "truth" and "facts" without really having provided any. Perhaps those shields of confidence you put forth contain kernels of both truth and fact, but without context or clarification, they hold no weight for me.
Sure has been fun to engage in this back and forth in a strange, odd sort of way with another obviously intelligent person such as yourself, but sadly, not sure it has been all that helpful towards a greater understanding of the issue.
Happy trails.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
|
