dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
15
share rss forum feed


moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to Gaff

Re: Massive discrepancy between Suddenlink's meter and my own

Everyone also needs to remember that this is just showing one day of usage that doesn't match your own meter. He wasn't actually charged any money or overage fee for it yet. So I don't even know if there could be any legal recourse against SL.

I actually haven't heard of ANYONE being charged MONEY for overages yet. Feel free to post a link if someone has!

areacode304

join:2006-08-26
WV
said by moldypickle:

Everyone also needs to remember that this is just showing one day of usage that doesn't match your own meter. He wasn't actually charged any money or overage fee for it yet. So I don't even know if there could be any legal recourse against SL.

While that's true, Suddenlink has instituted a bandwidth cap in his region which has automatic overage fees attached if the cap is exceeded. The bandwidth that their (faulty as all hell) meter shows that he used would be held against him if he were to exceed the cap, even though he couldn't have used it due to the outage.

One could argue, should they want to start shit about this, that Suddenlink is intentionally altering their meter in an effort to make users go over their limit and have to pay more on their next billing cycle. I'm not saying that the argument would be taken seriously by a court of law or that Suddenlink is actually guilty of such practices, but stirring the pot would bring a fair amount of negative attention that I doubt any business would want. Once an allegation goes public, consumer opinion tends to drop considerably and is exceptionally difficult to sway back in the company's favor.

I should note that since Suddenlink seems to operate in markets where there is little to nothing in the way of viable alternatives for television and internet services, they would likely survive the shitstorm based solely on the fact that not doing business with them would mean having significantly less access to the outside world. Well played, Suddenlink. Even when you lose, you win.


Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

join:1999-09-05
North TX, US
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
I got it on the front page today: »Suddenlink Usage Meters Still Don't Work and Nobody Cares

And yeah, if it's something I won't be charged for then that would help. As I said above, my total usage for this billing period came in at 250.2GB, 0.2GB over their limit.

Pete Abel was meant to be getting back to me today with an update.
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»www.gaffonline.com


arandomguy

@suddenlink.net
reply to moldypickle
Actually, I was charged an extra $50 for overages on the billing cycle after the overages happened. My bro even stated it in the thread that you read moldy (he's Uplinkpro btw...I really should get my own account -_-).

»So, you can't trust their fine print either


moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

You were charged $50 for your first time going over the cap? Even the SL mailer said you get 3 strikes (3 months I would think) before they charge you. Did you get no notices or redirects upon hitting your cap?


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
said by moldypickle:

You were charged $50 for your first time going over the cap? Even the SL mailer said you get 3 strikes (3 months I would think) before they charge you. Did you get no notices or redirects upon hitting your cap?

Sshhhhh.
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it.

jdmm72

join:2002-02-12
Nitro, WV
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to areacode304
said by areacode304:

While that's true, Suddenlink has instituted a bandwidth cap in his region which has automatic overage fees attached if the cap is exceeded. The bandwidth that their (faulty as all hell) meter shows that he used would be held against him if he were to exceed the cap, even though he couldn't have used it due to the outage.

One could argue, should they want to start shit about this, that Suddenlink is intentionally altering their meter in an effort to make users go over their limit and have to pay more on their next billing cycle. I'm not saying that the argument would be taken seriously by a court of law or that Suddenlink is actually guilty of such practices, but stirring the pot would bring a fair amount of negative attention that I doubt any business would want. Once an allegation goes public, consumer opinion tends to drop considerably and is exceptionally difficult to sway back in the company's favor.

I should note that since Suddenlink seems to operate in markets where there is little to nothing in the way of viable alternatives for television and internet services, they would likely survive the shitstorm based solely on the fact that not doing business with them would mean having significantly less access to the outside world. Well played, Suddenlink. Even when you lose, you win.

According to Pete Abel himself, we in the 304 area code are not under the usage cap yet. He stated that we'd get a letter stating the caps and consequences. My meter is useless also, as I have proven the one day my house didn't have power and I wasn't even home (and was on vacation the prior week, so it wasn't aggregate) I was shown to have used 12GB, with their headend down, my modem down, my computer/router/wireless all down.


arandomguy

@suddenlink.net
reply to moldypickle
It wasn't the first time going over, but we never actually received anything that resembled any kind of warning. The first "warning" we got was them performing what amounted to a DNS attack that just asked us to confirm the account with no mention of why we were brought to the page. For that little warning I was actually forced to us IE to even see it since Chrome couldn't even let me see what was "attacking" me. After that we swapped DNS because even after confirming our account we couldn't access most major websites and ended up never getting any warning through the browser, e-mail, normal mail, phone, or anything. We were never even asked if we wanted a seperate method of receiving warnings until AFTER the several times we went over, and not even directly through Suddenlink but rather from a rebuttal from them regarding a BBB claim my brother lodged against them.


Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

join:1999-09-05
North TX, US
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 recommendation

Suddenlink have suspended their overage program in light of the issue I brought to their attention with regards to the inaccurate meter: »Suddenlink Puts Broadband Overage Fees on Ice
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»www.gaffonline.com


moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to arandomguy
That redirect is not a DNS attack, it's just a redirect. And it is SUPPOSED to have the warning and other information on it before you verify your account. Obviously it's not finished yet, lol.

Having a separate DNS won't help you avoid that redirect either. I got hit with it for other reasons awhile back and I've always had my router using separate DNS servers. After a dozen pages of legal mumbo jumbo and threats I was able to verify the account and get back on. Interestingly my IP was also changed that day.
--
20/2 Suddenlink : Current
5/1 CMA : Old
15/2 TWC : Old


arandomguy

@suddenlink.net
Well after we changed DNs servers we never got anything from inside the browser again. And when I reference the word "attack," that's what it showed up as in chrome and IE. It mentioned their DNS redirect was most likely a malicious attack and Chrome wouldn't even let me click through to see what the redirect was pointing to, so I had to use IE to click through its warning page.

The following link shows something similar to what showed up when it first happened (can't remember if it was exactly this or not, but just like this pic it didn't have an option to proceed). »www.hotforsecurity.com/images/en···rome.jpg


moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2
Interesting to say the least, maybe there are different systems in place.