dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
24

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle to Cobra11M

Premium Member

to Cobra11M

Re: Emailed Suddenlink and here is what I get

Didn't know about that policy either. It's not stated like that in their Terms of Service AT ALL.

Hell, didn't even know they would let you add 2 services on the same bill.

What seems odd to me in that statement though is that SL is having issues with certain customers abusing the system. The old and current TOS provides ample power to simple disconnect these users.

I'm also confused if the offending number is a "large number of customers" abusing the system, or if it's the "less than 1% of our customers" that they like to say.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

said by moldypickle:

Didn't know about that policy either. It's not stated like that in their Terms of Service AT ALL.

Hell, didn't even know they would let you add 2 services on the same bill.

What seems odd to me in that statement though is that SL is having issues with certain customers abusing the system. The old and current TOS provides ample power to simple disconnect these users.

I'm also confused if the offending number is a "large number of customers" abusing the system, or if it's the "less than 1% of our customers" that they like to say.

Yeah, if it wasn't a money grab, or at least a serious scare tactic, they could simply throttle everyone back who goes over 250/350 or whatever your plan gives you.

Frankly though, I still don't think its fair at all to essentially offer an unlimited product for years, and then one day decide for the betterment of the users experience we are going to give everyone caps, and charge outrageous prices on overages.

That is NOT innovation, it is going backwards. They are dumping tons of money into upgrades after all, aren't they?

The future is MORE internet usage, not less...
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M to moldypickle

Member

to moldypickle
said by moldypickle:

Didn't know about that policy either. It's not stated like that in their Terms of Service AT ALL.

Hell, didn't even know they would let you add 2 services on the same bill.

What seems odd to me in that statement though is that SL is having issues with certain customers abusing the system. The old and current TOS provides ample power to simple disconnect these users.

I'm also confused if the offending number is a "large number of customers" abusing the system, or if it's the "less than 1% of our customers" that they like to say.

I didn't either.. Ive heard of it before in this area.. but idk..

I emailed them cause after seeing the stop the cap post about it (and a little encouragement from him saying customers need to email them and say this is unacceptable) so I did just that

1% users... must be people using 1tb.. heck like someone said in the posts above.. why not throttle after 250gb or if people hate the throttle then give them a option to pay a little more for more full speed bandwidth..

I can see what their saying as far as one person downloading and others not getting the full speed they are paying for just because of one person.. But if they where to throttle after 250, 300 or whatever I would think Suddenlink would be in a better position than where they are now.. What the companies don't realize is people hate looking and keeping track of how much data they use for what ever reason that may be.. if they where to enact a throttle technique to say.. 128kbps (1mbps) or so that's enough to surf and what not and not harm anyone.. if the person desperately needs their full speed back then they could have it at 10 for each 50 gb

People hate bill shock AT&T and all of them should be ashamed.. People don't care if Suddenlink was the last.. THAT JUST MEANS THEY FOLLOW THE INDUSTRY.. which again makes people even more madder, Comcast is looking into doing 500gb which is def a good amount for today's usage..

That's also another fear Suddenlink, is that people fear that the caps wont rise with the amount that will be needed in the future.., Their intentions maybe to help people out.. but they sure are targeting it wrongfully especially for a company that's private.

And yes if they want to bill customers like water and electric then their needs to be a regulatory or some one to check it besides the corporation them selves. That's why I emailed them about mainly.. Is that what guarantee can you give us that you are really gonna hire a 3rd party company to check the meters? you could say that you will but whats the proof?, also since we've been lied to before. Just saying a company isn't quite accurate.. I told them if they can't make a good enough meter to work then why should I stay with a company that is in accurate practices?

But anyways, hopefully it all works out, I love their services.. but its def getting to a point.. Suddenlink may be the only cable provider in my area, but they are not the only internet provider.. AT&T, Skybeam, Cirria, and some others.. I feel fortunate that where I live their is a few choices unlike most of the country .

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

Another thing I would LOVE to see, but know will NEVER come to light, is their data on which nodes these "abusers" are on and see if the node, minus that 1 or 2 users, is already overloaded. Say you have a thousand users already on one node and ONE SINGLE PERSON that is downloading 700gigs a month because he paid for the 100 meg package. That node is already slow to begin with, probably shouldn't have the 100 meg tier on it, and is damn near lieing when they would say that this guy is why the whole node is slow.

I did see an innovative idea (or more so than a simple cap). Restrict usage to a "cap or throttle" scheme during prime time, then after midnight let the seeders/leechers lose, lol. That would seem to be beneficial for both sides of the story.

Of course I'm still 100% for true regulation regardless of what money grab they want to use. Hell, I'd even be up for TRUE usage based billing if it were down in the same fashion as electric or water. Not this made up number per gig that ISP want to use, but something that reflects even a resemblance of cost, again, like the utilities we have now.

Anon69
@conwaycorp.net

Anon69

Anon

You can't really use that argument. What if one night 10-20 people on a 200-400 person node decide to download something and max out their connections? That would saturate the D2 channel at a minimum. Caps or no caps the connection would be saturated. They HAVE to oversell to make money. You are not paying for a 1:1 dedicated internet access line. DSL subscribers are not either.

That being said, I agree with most of the above. If they want to bill like a utility then they should be regulated like one. Money grab or not, you have to give them credit for suspending the cap while they verify it.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

I wasn't really suggesting a 1:1 connection, but more along the lines of nodes should be filled up but not oversold to the point that regular use becomes terrible for all. But if 20 people max out a 400 person node, something is wrong. Even the backwater cable company I used to use before I moved was better than that.

Either way, it IS a shared connection at the node. Something needs to be in place seemingly, but no regulating body wants to touch it with a 10 ft stick.