dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3848
share rss forum feed

Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

Caps and Overages are Back

As some of you might have read in some other threads, Suddenlink's caps are indeed back and they ARE sending out warnings. This is without any prior notice to the areas affected by the re-implementation and despite the fact they are simply unneeded and burdensome. It doesn't help that the meter being used seems to be exactly the same as it was before (wrong in the same ways) which leads me to believe they didn't actually test it again and just pulled it till the heat died down from that one person being pinged for data when he had no power.

As mentioned in the other thread, here's the first message I got from Suddenlink stating that overages were back in place in my area:

quote:
As of approximately 11:59 p.m. CT on 05/30/2013, your Internet account had used 276 GB in the current monthly billing period, exceeding the monthly allowance of 250 GB. This is the first time your account has exceeded its monthly allowance since our current plan was put into place. Per that plan, customers are not billed for exceeding the monthly allowance until the third time doing so. Very few customers exceed their allowance; even fewer exceed it three times. In the future, we'll notify you whenever your account approaches its allowance and again if it exceeds that allowance.

If you wish to change how you receive these notifications in the future, please log in to your online account at Suddenlink.net; choose "My Account," then "Online Tools," then "View Internet Usage," and then "Update Notification Preference." If you do not yet have an online account with us, visit Suddenlink.net and follow the registration instructions provided there. When complete, choose "Online Tools," then "View Internet Usage," and then "Update Notification Preference."

If you have questions about Suddenlink's allowance plan, please visit this Web page: »www.suddenlink.com/allowanceplan.
As you can probably tell, the first notice I received about the caps being re-implemented in my area was the first warning message sent via their e-mail bot.

I'm reposting this as a new thread so it will be more visible to people that might avoid some of the other threads since this will clearly affect more people that might be ignorant of caps being put into place in their area because Suddenlink is simply not telling anyone about it.


Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

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

As the guy who got Suddenlink to drop the caps, at least for a while, I'm disappointed to see them return. I'm especially disappointed because there is no press release, email, or other notification being sent out to subscribers to let them know what is happening.

Just for fun, here is what my router has measured for the past week versus what Suddenlink's chart says:

6/2
 
Router: 5.5GB
Suddenlink: 5.8GB
 
6/1
 
Router: 24.7GB
Suddenlink: 22.8GB
 
5/31
 
Router: 7.8GB
Suddenlink: 8.4GB
 
5/30
 
Router: 5.8GB
Suddenlink: 0 (?)
 
5/29
 
Router: 7.8GB
Suddenlink: 7.7GB
 
5/28
 
Router: 3.4GB
Suddenlink: 3.2GB
 
5/27
 
Router: 5.8GB
Suddenlink: 11.1GB
 
Totals:
 
Router: 60.8GB
Suddenlink: 59GB
 

A discrepancy of almost 3%. Granted, it's 3% in my favour, but I doubt it will be that way every month.

Bottom line: it's still inaccurate, and sometimes (check 5/27 and 5/30) it's very inaccurate.
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»www.unbooted.com

Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

That 0 usage shown for one day means that the usage meter didn't update by 8 AM CDT the next day and so was thrown out. I've noticed for most of the days I've been monitoring it (not many to be fair) that it tends to update between 5 AM and 7 AM.

In other words, if they didn't throw out the previous days usage because their meter was too slow to update it would be over what your router is stating.

Here's the fine print on their meter:

quote:
Our usage measuring and reporting system is designed to update the information reported on this page every 24 hours. Typically, those updates will be processed and posted to this page each day by or before 8:00 a.m. Central Time, reflecting usage through approximately 11:59 p.m. local time of the prior day. In those cases where a new update to this page shows no incremental usage in the 24 hours since the last update, one of two conditions apply: either (a) there was no incremental usage in that time period; or (b) the transmission of daily usage (from our counter to this page) was delivered too late to be deemed useful to the customer and was thus not counted and not applied to the customer's usage total.


Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

join:1999-09-05
North TX, US
reply to Uplinkpro

I figured it would be something like that. To be honest I'm more concerned about the 5/27 anomaly...
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»www.unbooted.com



fatpipe

join:2011-10-02
Austin, TX
reply to Uplinkpro

I sympathize with all the customers having to deal with the parasitical ISP that Suddenlink clearly is by reason of their recent actions.

As an aside, I recently viewed the FanEdit of Dune, (excellent IMHO) and I am suddenly reminded of the scene in which the Baron directs his nephew the Beast Rabban to "SQUEEZE" the people of Arrakeen.

Suddenlink is now "squeezing" its customers for the same purposes!



Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

said by fatpipe:

I sympathize with all the customers having to deal with the parasitical ISP that Suddenlink clearly is by reason of their recent actions.

As an aside, I recently viewed the FanEdit of Dune, (excellent IMHO) and I am suddenly reminded of the scene in which the Baron directs his nephew the Beast Rabban to "SQUEEZE" the people of Arrakeen.

Suddenlink is now "squeezing" its customers for the same purposes!

Has anyone paid an overage yet?
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it.


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

No one could be charged yet, in this new cycle of overages because you get two free strikes.

If you listen to SL, they say it's rare people even go over, and even more rare after two notices.

Translation: The fear of overages is working as intended, lower the amount of data people use. And then guess what? They can say the average use is even lower to even better justify the limits in the first place.

Good thing they are spending millions of dollars on all these "network upgrades" so they can scare people into not using it.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com



gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to Uplinkpro

I'd also like to point out, not everyone is getting screwed apparently..

Some markets have no limits, at least not yet...

How many more ways can I get screwed... Lets see..

1. The top speeds in my market are 50/3 yet other markets get 107/5 and my understanding is they pay the same price as me.

2. I have a cap, with overages. I pay for the highest speed and price internet package, and yet I have the same limits as slower, less expensive plans. Oh and some markets, no matter how much you pay, have no limits.

Keep bending me over... I guess I like it... Oh wait, I have no real alternative, except slow DSL, very high priced wireless or nothing... Give me more please!
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

1 edit

I think the highest speed I have access to here is the 30mb/s which has the same cap as my 15/1.5 connection or h/e fast it is. Yes, this is also an uncompetitive market and they probably thought they could stealthily add the caps while no one was watching.

I think the biggest sign of there not being something right is there has not been one message from anyone relating to Suddenlink regarding this issue since the first thread about the meters being reinitialized. That point is also kinda funny since the last post of that thread hit the nail on the head: In the words of moldypickle

quote:
You'll find out about it when you go over.
In fact, outside of SDL L3Tech's posts on network related problems and one snarky comment in that one thread there have been very little posts from Suddenlink agents at all within the last 180 days.

edit: Also, I think a lot of people wouldn't actually mind if these were just messages saying "Hey, you're using a large amount of data and we'd like it if you ran these tests to make sure you're not infected with anything." If it remained educational and they actually tried to reach out to people to try and lower their usage rather than punish those that actually use their connection people would be more willing to deal with them, but as it is with SL being mute on the subject and right out ignoring the possibility of being infected or someone hacking into your network it makes people less likely to want to deal with them.


moldypickle

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

Oh my, I'm getting quoted now! lol

I wonder how many people actually read the meter testing report they put out when they said it was fixed, hope I wasn't the only one O.o

Gator, I have been able to confirm in various different markets that have either the 50 or the 107 down, that they are the same price (within a small margin of difference). Basically tells you they are completely making up the pricing as they go. I don't have a problem with profits, but make believe land is a bit out there.....
--
30/2 Suddenlink : Current
5/1 CMA : Old
15/2 TWC : Old


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

1 edit

Apparently you were. The only problem with the "verified" meter though is even if it's a third party they could have produced the results Suddenlink wants to see. We see this happen all the time in every study where someone wants an "independent" review. The second is we're already seeing discrepancies in metered usage of 100% more as listed by Gaff. This is far above their supposed accuracy of within 1%. As some of us recall, they said their meters were accurate last time as well before they backpedaled due to it measuring usage when Gaff's power was completely cut off for two days.

Simply put, you really can't take them at their word about their meters being accurate since everyone involved with the testing is related to Suddenlink in some way, shape, or form. This is why without a government regulated form of measure like what we do with gas, water, electricity, etc. they can't say their meters are any more accurate than anyone else's - there's simply no set standard for measurement that is completely unaffiliated with the companies involved in the measurement.

tl;dr They can claim to be accurate all they want, it doesn't make it true.



moldypickle

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

To be fair, a 1% error rate could also include hundreds of reported errors from unique users when you count in the millions of readings they would be taking each day.

Another point when looking at the issue objectively, short of your modem simply being unplugged from the cable and still showing usage, there's no real way to know if your router meter, or SuddenLinks meter is off.

Not taking sides, just being objective
--
30/2 Suddenlink : Current
5/1 CMA : Old
15/2 TWC : Old



Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

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

It was another guy who's power was off for three days.

In my case my cable was down for several hours but Suddenlink's system somehow saw me as downloading at max speed for the entire time I was offline, which caused a large discrepancy between their reading and mine.
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»www.unbooted.com


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

Ah, well today when the meter updated my router's meter is showing 91.9GB while SL's meter is showing 98.4 GB. Normally my meter is higher by a margin (partially due to SL not counting Docsis overhead, partly for other reasons) so this is actually a much larger difference than what it seems. It's not nearly as large of a difference as what you showed though percentage wise.

Again, this just shows the problems with metering bandwidth consumption in general since meters will measure differently since there's no mandated way of measuring said bandwidth. The fact that they can say "our metering is right no matter what your meters say" is telling.



moldypickle

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

That's really the main problem of the whole issue, once you quit arguing over if it's right or wrong to HAVE caps. There's no regulation, no one standard scale.



Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

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

As I've said before, if they want to bill like utilities then they should be regulated like utilities, including independent testing of their methodology and measuring process, and an agency to which to file for a redress of grievances.
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»www.unbooted.com



Demog

@cebridge.net

Now that is a terrible idea...ISPs charging by the GB? I'll take a cap any day.



moldypickle

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

Really wouldn't be that terrible of an idea if actually regulated and enforced. You'd have accurate meters, and the payment scheme would not have you paying a ridiculous amount for the speed. TRUE UBB is far too favoring the customer to ever be truly sought after though.


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

This one's going to be long, so bear with me :X

Now that I look at it, there's actually a fair amount of problems with their test methodology in the netforecast report. For starters, they claim Suddenlink didn't know when they would perform the tests which occurred in Tyler, Texas and Malvern, Arkansas over six weeks in February and March. However, during that time the meters were turned off for most people, which means either they were still metering but kept it hidden or had prior knowledge that the tests would go on and had to turn it back on temporarily. That, of course, is only a minor issue. The other issue is, of course, the six week test while testing from only two locations. This is simply a non-viable sample size due to the fact that there's simply not enough data to verify any bias one way or the other. It's like saying you've found a cure for cancer because you only cured two people.

Next, look at the data usage graphs. In the graphs it shows that for most days during testing minimal traffic was passing through the meters. Most of these days show usage of 0.8GB and, as is made clear in the report, Suddenlink rounds downward on the display (so .89GB turns into .8GB). This is fairly important because it hides possible precision problems within rounding on lower numbers which were what was mostly tested. For those .8s shown on the graph this could be a difference of 11.25% being rounded away. This, of course, is important after you scale the numbers to higher amounts. At only .8GB an 11.25% increase can be .09GB, not much, but at 80GB an 11.25% increase would be the difference between 80GB and 89GB usage. This potential issue would, of course, not be so glaring if the tests used much more data in more of their testing AND if Suddenlink didn't round off some of the numbers.

Now let's look at how they only update the meters daily. In one day on a 15mb/s line you can theoretically consume 150GB in a single day. Now, since most people won't come near that, let's simplify it to a more realistic scenario. Let's say there's 3 days left on your billing period and you've used 200GB of your cap. That means for those 3 days you can have an average usage of around 16.6GB a day. On day one you meet your goal and hit the 16.6GB, but on day 2 you use 25GB. Not realizing you've used more than your goal on day 2 you proceed to use your bandwidth through the early morning of Day 3 during the (in my case) 8 hour dead zone where they give themselves that long to update the meters from the previous day. However, during those 8 hours because of the previous day's usage you can only use 9Gb of data. Now, while they say you can use 255GB before you will be charged, that doesn't remedy the issue. During those 8 hours you can easily use the 16GB you have allotted yourself and hit around 258GB - just high enough to go over the cap and trigger an alert. So you receive an e-mail immediately from Suddenlink warning you went over right? Not so much. If you don't use their DNS then their warning won't interrupt your browsing session so you won't get it through your browser and their e-mail bot doesn't register that you went over until the meter registers your usage the next day. By the time you're alerted you went over it's already too late.

Now, to get on to semantics. We keep talking about accuracy when the other thing we should focus on is precision. By design SL's metering will not be accurate when compared to other forms of metering due to the docsis overhead. This means we can only guess at the accuracy in relation to another meter. This is where precision comes into play. If both meters are 100% accurate in what they measure then it would imply they are both 100% precise as well. What this means is that both meters will always be within a certain percentage of usage from each other and always one above the other in measurement. For example if your meter always showed you used 30GB and SL's meter always showed 28GB when you sent the same amount of data then the meters would both be precise as they would hit what they were aiming for every time. However, precision doesn't mean accurate. If you hit a 1 on the dart board every time while going for triple 20 then you would be precise, but sure as hell not accurate.

That's where this next point comes into play. Due to how SL meters their bandwidth it should always be below most other meters in measurement or at the very least stay within a certain percentage below or above another meter. However, as shown in previous example from Gaff this is simply not the case. There are days when the usage is close to his own meter and then days where there is as much as a 100% difference in SL's favor. This implies one of three things: Gaff's meter is not precise, Suddenlink's meter is not precise, or both. Going by how much data he was consistently using I'm going with SL's meter being the problem here. It's the only one that shows a distinct outlier in its data. If this were an isolated incident it would be one thing, but it's simply not.

Now let's get into internet stability and how packet loss counts against you in more ways than one. I'm fairly certain people here will remember the outage a few days ago that affect a good deal of customers. This is fairly important because what if it happens again (hint, it will)? What if during that period of time you're downloading a large file, such as a new game or an update, and due to the outage which is completely out of your control your download gets corrupted and you have to restart it? What if you were 99% down with a 20GB file? Some of you see where this is going. That near 20GB would count against you and you would have to download it all over again all because of something that's completely out of your control.


GeorgetownTX

join:2006-11-28
Georgetown, TX

It can't be difficult to accurately measure actual bytes transferred. Your router can count bytes in and out. Your cable modem can count bytes. Certainly they can count bytes at the other end of your cable modem. Do you count TCP/IP packet overhead? Ethernet packet overhead on top of that? Cable modem packet overhead on top of that? Retransmits? Retransmits due to client or server saturation that has nothing to do with ISP? Do you get a credit for piggyback ACKs? Which of those overheads do you think you should pay for versus the ISP? It's just easier for them to apply a small overhead percentage adjustment to raw bytes instead of tearing apart every packet to count "content" bytes. I really don't think they are intentionally trying to cheat you on counting bytes toward the cap.

Sure, there are cases like canceled and restarted downloads, but that's usually the client or server's fault instead of ISP. It's also not difficult to use a smart download manager that can restart downloads from where they were interrupted.

The real issue that I never see discussed is that SL and other ISPs have to pay for infrastructure and backbone carriers for bandwidth (ingress and egress) based on their PEAK USAGE during their busiest day of the month. There is no point in penalizing customers who want to download terabytes at 2am to 6am because that doesn't cost the ISP a dime more. It's the downloads from 6pm to 10pm that cost the ISP real money (both infrastructure and peering), and lately that is mostly for streaming movies. A monthly download cap is not a very accurate reflection of what costs SL extra money for heavy users.

If SL would simply (or maybe not so simply) bill for extra GB usage during peak usage hours, that would encourage heavy usage customers to move their large downloads to off-peak hours, and everyone could be happier. When I lived in Seattle area, the power company ran a pilot for time-of-day rate change consumer billing to more accurately reflect power generation costs and encourage moving usage to off-peak hours. If a power company can figure out how to do this, certainly an internet ISP can figure out how to do this.

The alternative is traffic shaping/throttling during peak hours to slow down large downloads, and personally I'd rather have the option to pay for additional bandwidth when I want it instead of having it slowed down without my control.

You are not really paying the ISP for 24/7 utilization of your full bandwidth. Try pricing a dedicated T3 line. The truth is that customers who use very little of their bandwidth are subsidizing the heavy users. So don't squeal too loud or maybe they'll notice.


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

More heavy users generally do their downloads on off peak hours since otherwise it would affect their usage during peak hours. If they so called 1% are able to cause the problems you're claiming on off-peak hours then that's an issue with the ISP overselling their network. Also, there already are ISPs in some other countries that don't count off-peak usage for their customers already, so the technology is already there to an extent. Suddenlink not choosing that option clearly shows that this is not about "enhancing your experience" but rather about enhancing their bottom line. Also, when the nodes are oversold as they are they already throttle during peak hours, whether by choice or not.

If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty though, the US has some of the highest broadband costs per Mb/s in the world on top of the caps. We are paying more for less, plain and simple, and you can't say "the lower end users are subsidizing the heavy users" due to the fact they charge everyone the same price. The fact that no one's bill is going down because of the caps being implemented shows that the ONLY thing they care about is their bottom line, not the user "experience."



gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to Uplinkpro

If you want to bill by the byte, or in this case, by GB, then charge everyone an access fee, and then bill by the GB. People who use less pay less, people who use more, pay more.

Also, everyone should be running at the same speeds. There is no point at all in having different speed tiers in this system, in fact its simply not fair. Everyone should have equal access to the available capacity.

Caps are not about anything other than restricting how much data everyone uses. The reasons for this are open to debate.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA
reply to GeorgetownTX

said by GeorgetownTX:

So don't squeal too loud or maybe they'll notice.

Also, how very mature of you to imply that everyone speaking out against the caps are "hogs." Really makes your stance look that much better when you resort to such tripe.

GeorgetownTX

join:2006-11-28
Georgetown, TX

1 recommendation

Not intending to offend, and I am also against the caps the way they are structured. My point is that the caps they are implementing don't accurately address their problem (expense) or my problem (congestion). Some folks who stay inside the caps but stream a movie every night between 6pm and 10pm probably cost the company more (and cause more peak congestion for the rest of us) than some "heavy" users who download mostly off-peak.

I don't think SL is really trying to make more money off heavy users. Billing a handful of us an extra few hundred a year won't make them a bit of difference. I think they are trying to avoid paying for more infrastructure expansion to relieve peak congestion for the masses by picking on the few "heavy" users who they can easily target (via caps) to lower their peak congestion.

But I am also saying that it is not "fair" for someone with a 30/2 package to saturate that much bandwidth 24/7 and pay the same price as someone who occasionally streams a movie. There has to be some middle ground somewhere.

As gatorkram said, it would be more accurate to pay a small access fee plus actual usage, but SL would hate that because most people would end up paying less than they already do. Same reason cell phone companies want to charge a higher monthly fee for "almost unlimited" instead of $10/mo access plus usage. Same reason SL doesn't offer pick-your-own-cable-channels for $1 each, because everyone would choose only a handful instead of buying big channel packages to get the few channels they really want. Similar, I'd love to have 107mbit internet for a small access fee plus usage fees. I don't download a lot of stuff, but I like to download it fast when I want it.

We can bitch and moan about something we used to get for "free" (high utilization of available bandwidth 24/7) now costing more money or being capped, but I still don't think it is unreasonable to charge more to people who use more. The real question is about what pricing model is reasonably fair and practical to implement.

I've heard a lot of complaints about the caps, but not a lot of suggestions. I was trying to suggest some sort of peak-time usage metering as an alternative since it more accurately reflects expense I think the company is trying to avoid while leaving the ability for high utilization off-peak for people who want to download a lot of stuff. Personally I'd rather have some guaranteed minimum bandwidth and maximum latency as those are more important to me than peak speed and total bytes per month.

The real problem is lack of broadband provider competition in the markets that SL and other cable companies serve. Neither congress nor local municipalities that grant exclusive provider contracts seem interested in intervening. Complain all you want here in this forum -- you're just preaching to the choir.


NoOneButMe

join:2001-08-24
TX
reply to Uplinkpro

i don't mind the caps i wish they where higher is all i live out in the middle of no where and we use netflix for most of our tv viewing and online streams for news so this affects us more i think the caps should be higher about 50gb higher not much more though.



moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2
reply to GeorgetownTX

Georgetown, not many people are bitching anymore about caps just because we used to not have them. Caps are seemingly inevitable at this point. We're mainly bitching about how it's being done.


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

1 edit

I'm complaining about the whole kit and caboodle. We all know by now the not only are caps ineffective and unneeded, but also that they are a drain on the economy as well as used anti-competitively. We already pay some of the highest prices for bandwidth in the world even when NOT counting the caps. Add to the fact that the CEO of SL has said the following: »stopthecap.com/2010/09/01/sudden···ly-over/ and you see that it's really just about them trying to find ways to squeeze more money out of people. The fact that the cost to deliver bandwidth is steadily going down as our prices continuously go up shows that no savings made by the company will ever be seen by the consumer. Most of their planned capital expenditures this year, for example, are going into their phone system so they don't have to pay as much in its upkeep. Our phone bills won't go down, but theirs will.

Of course, how they're handling the caps by not letting people know they have been put back into place with any official recognition other than a spam bot just makes it all the worse. Also, there doesn't seem to be a cap on how much they can charge you in overages.

Edit: Also, their ads that skirt near false advertisement don't help either. They carefully choose words that literally say one thing but imply something different. One example is where they state their service is the "fastest in town." Literally it can be taken as the fastest available in your town, but it implies they are the fastest. It's minute things like this in their commercials that make me both angry and make me laugh - the one commercial that phrase is in especially so because of all the imagery they use to make their service seem better than it is.



moldypickle

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

You have wall-o-text syndrome, lmao. Previous page I gave up on last night. Or maybe it's my vacation starting!!!!!

How does the improvements in their phone system not help the network as a whole? Passed the modem, the phone calls are passed as data to the fringe somewhere.


Uplinkpro

join:2008-02-11
Lake Charles, LA

Oh I don't mind that they're upgrading their system, but the point was their upgrades will make it cheaper to serve customers phone service but they'll still charge the same prices. Basically, they're upgrading to get more profit rather than upgrading to improve service. I don't actually mind this if it wasn't for the fact that they're doing the opposite with broadband. Instead of upgrading their systems to improve service and increase profit they're adding arbitrary caps that will make service worse for more people while charging all users the same high price before caps even come into play. They say it's to enhance customer service but it's doing quite the opposite.

And yes, I know :x Go figure when I was in school I hated doing essays because I hated writing out three to four pages of text for something I wasn't interested in.

As for what they can do, the simple answer is don't add caps. Come out with a statement openly saying you'll remove any caps currently in place, give people credit for any charges that may have occurred because of caps, and never look at them again. Doing this one thing would make more people willing to do business with them, as well as if they engaged their customers in a more public setting.



Demog

@cebridge.net
reply to moldypickle

I am in the minority here. I like it the way it is compared to other realistic options. I use more bandwidth than the average bear, so a pay per usage model would mean a larger bill for me.

The beauty to the inaccuracies in SL's measurements is that you have a basis to get warnings over turned, though so far like others, they are pretty close for me.