| the extortion gets worse Cableone seems to be in a race with Time Warner on who can gouge their customers the most. 3gb cap? Why bother. With that baseline, the "grandma's" can check their e-mail. Everyone else will be charged for actually using their service.
Nice to see the FCC stepping in and making things right for the consumer. [/sarcasm]
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Granted, the 3GB is per day and not per month, so it's not as horrid as TWC's proposed caps on the higher tiers. Though 1GB per month on Economy is pitiful.
Though you're right in thinking Comcast has a higher cap than CableOne. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to S_engineer
I agree. If this was like a comcast cap, the fcc would not need to be involved, but when it comes to out right price gouging/skrewing the costumer(looking at you 1gb cap with overages) then the Gov(be it the fcc or some1 else) should say 'NO!'. |
|
| I read that wrong...3 gb per day is better than TW, but it will still create problems. Online backups may prove to be troublesome. And I don't see this getting better in the future. The FCC needs to address capping issues now!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
|
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to S_engineer
5gb per day isnt too bad. Thats 150gigs/mo, which is more than 3 fold tw's 40 |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
Well that can't stop them from capping on their own network, the ISPs own it not the Gov. However, stuff like C.O's 1gb with overages, tw/att's metered plan where the caps are set low in hope of squeeze/gouging metering more money from even normal(not granny) users is different. If it was meter only, a low price for the connection[like$10 or so] and $0.25 per GB then maybe it could work, but a real pay per usage/pay as you go is not what these ISPs want, it will not gouge enough money from costumers. And as for that whole 'granny shouldn't pay for the higher usage guy.' Bull, she ain't paying for him if she has more speed than she needs she can down grade, they are paying for speed not usage. And if it cost an ISP x for their connection/backbone per month, and each costumer pays y and the ISP makes z(z>x>y,) how is that not fair? They both pay y I know she doesn't use as much. but if they are not on the lowest package why can't she get a slower package(lets say it costs w)? It would lower her cost and she would not be paying for speed she don't need. Then the higher usage would be paying y and the granny w(y>w). But some want granny to pay what she does now(y) and higher user to pay g(g>>>>>>>>>>>>y). If they must meter why not real PAYG?
If it was just a cap, with no meter then well there is not much that can be done, at least with the meter they can make sure it is an accurate meter, one that does not show high than actual usage to get more money from the costumer. But, if it is clear the ISP is price gouging its costumers(which I think it is) then the Gov can(and should) step in and should something. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
1 edit | reply to baineschile
40x3=120, so 150 is 10GB less than 4x more than tw's 40Gb. 40x4=160. |
|
| reply to baineschile
It's incredibly aggravating and discouraging to spread your data usage over a several day period.
Not to mention caps don't actually help manage network congestion. Not to mention there *is no* network congestion. Not to mention no ISP has ever justified their caps and throttling by revealing internal economic data. |
|
| reply to me1212
I doubt that FTC would step in to resolve the gouging. Money talks FTC listen ( Comcast and other broadband lobbyists). |
|
