| Cancel my service, Please. I wonder if this constant abuse of power will be the end of the internet. Due to companies unwillingness to expand capacity for new services they insist that the best way is to go after the people who use the product they are paying for. I doubt any of the simple internet users are experiencing any problems checking email or shopping on amazon. The average user probably spends very little time online doing anything that actually taxes the system. Unless customers start canceling services with these companies they will continue to walk all over them. Stop accepting these idiotic changes in TOS agreements, stop paying the extra $1 to $2, and stop allowing them to continue to make billions of dollars per quarter not giving you the service you "initially" signed up for. Somehow the word needs to move from these forums of the technically informed to the regular mom 'n' pop blogs. The word needs to become an issue of political debate, let alderman, mayors, & congressman know that you are tired and it must stop.
Just think, should truck drivers be capped on their road usage, I can't get around quickly do to all the trucks on the road, it is unfair to me.
quote from the movie 'Network' - I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. |
|
| Why would bell pay millions to upgrade b/w for the top %2 of users. What bell is saying is that their service is fine the way it is for the bottom %98
It has nothing to do with expanding capacity.
This is the equivalent of an All You Can Eat Buffet putting up a sign that says "No Fat Chicks" |
|
|
|
| said by NicPlus :
Why would bell pay millions to upgrade b/w for the top %2 of users. What bell is saying is that their service is fine the way it is for the bottom %98
It has nothing to do with expanding capacity.
I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that 98% is not the average user. If a paltry 2% of users are using P2P applications, streaming video/music, & online gaming and it degrades your giant network then you need to expand it. These telecom/cable isp's are providing bare minimum capacity with the hope that people will not actually use their service to its full "described" potential.
said by NicPlus :
This is the equivalent of an All You Can Eat Buffet putting up a sign that says "No Fat Chicks"
No it is not the same, it is more like saying all-you-can-eat buffet but serve people on very large plates, hoping most people will only put a small amount of food on plate. When 2% start to fill that plate to capacity and refill several times then they get booted. |
|
| said by ossito16:I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that 98% is not the average user. If a paltry 2% of users are using P2P applications, streaming video/music, & online gaming and it degrades your giant network then you need to expand it. These telecom/cable isp's are providing bare minimum capacity with the hope that people will not actually use their service to its full "described" potential. If ISPs had to buy enough capacity to guarantee that all users could simultaneously use the full advertised speed, internet access would cost around $7 per Mbps... Bell's 16Mbps service would need to cost over $150/month instead of the current $75/month.
The low costs we see from most ADSL providers ($30 to $40 for unlimited) rely heavily on the assumption of intermittent usage. As ISPs get infested by heavy users on low-cost unlimited plans, unlimited plans will either disappear or get marked up to compensate - this is exactly what TSI did two days ago after noticing the Unlimited average shooting up 60% over little more than a month, presumably in large part thanks to ex-Videotronites and October's 100GB/month cap.
Another issue with capacity is that in order to deliver consistently low latencies and reliable service, the external links actually need to have significant overcapacity to keep traffic queues short on all links at all times and provide headroom for fail-over.
There are very real costs to bandwidth and they do not go much below $0.04/GB in North America for the cheapest complete solutions.
Bell and Videotron are clearly overcharging for the caps they have regardless of speeds... but the burden is very real for the smaller ISPs who compete on price with the rest like TSI. |
|
| said by Moonlight_x :
If ISPs had to buy enough capacity to guarantee that all users could simultaneously use the full advertised speed, internet access would cost around $7 per Mbps... Bell's 16Mbps service would need to cost over $150/month instead of the current $75/month..... Thank you very much, you have provided me with a clearer picture. I guess what I am asking for is to hear this explanation from the companies themselves instead of the double talk they give to us. I admit that 150-250gb caps are reasonable even for a online P2P/game user. |
|
| said by ossito16:I guess what I am asking for is to hear this explanation from the companies themselves instead of the double talk they give to us. I admit that 150-250gb caps are reasonable even for a online P2P/game user. The ISPs' hidden caps and various undisclosed practices are indeed annoying and the way many try to cover the facts is insulting/frustrating. The combination of total lack of transparency, overpriced plans, overpriced overage, sub-par customer and technical support do make dealing with most major ISPs a PITA.
Those are all reasons why I plan to go with TSI near the end of my current internet contract... $30/200GB/month is much better than anything Bell and Videotron have to offer for a moderate downloader like me. |
|
