dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
262
share rss forum feed

Klarth

join:2005-09-16
Oronogo, MO
Reviews:
·Mediacom

1 recommendation

Mediacom

I think you're giving them too much credit. Shortly after the e-mail notifications started rolling in, the thread popped up here and numerous on Mediacom's support forums. It took a while for their social media team to have their talking points regurgitated to them, but they now include the "This doesn't affect 97% of users" line, showing they went with the approach of claiming if you happen to use Netflix, Hulu, etc instead of Mediacom's content, you're the anomaly.

Additionally, since Mediacom's infrastructure is so underdeveloped in areas, if you can't get their Ultra tier, you are stuck with a much more restrictive cap.

The final gem on the top of this change is that you have to sign up for a separate e-mail address with Mediacom to even view your usage, and so far even know they are making this change (though they have stated they will send snail mail letters at some point). The account that you use to view/pay your bill online is not connected to viewing the meter.

GLIMMER

join:2004-01-17
Fisher, IL
and att is not there biggest rival. its frontier in most areas


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
reply to Klarth

I think you're giving them too much credit. Shortly after the e-mail notifications started rolling in, the thread popped up here and numerous on Mediacom's support forums. It took a while for their social media team to have their talking points regurgitated to them, but they now include the "This doesn't affect 97% of users" line, showing they went with the approach of claiming if you happen to use Netflix, Hulu, etc instead of Mediacom's content, you're the anomaly.

Don't get me wrong, I still think their justifications are crap, they're just slightly less crap than other justifications I've seen, where the carrier insists that paying more "improves your customer experience," or trots out the congestion bogeyman even though the industry itself has admitted congestion isn't an issue and isn't why they're doing this.

Klarth

join:2005-09-16
Oronogo, MO
Reviews:
·Mediacom
I'm afraid it looks like they have that spell in their deck as well...

»Re: 250gb limit

I really hope we can at least expose them for this behavior, like I said in the other thread, I doubt they even feel shame at this point. Around here someone that actually utilizes a broadband connection has to deal with the realities of rural cable companies. Even companies like CableOne and Cox have backed off on these caps, but now Mediacom is going the wrong direction.

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to GLIMMER
said by GLIMMER:

its frontier in most areas

In most areas, it depends on whos there. Here, they have 2 areas of service, and one of them has CenturyLink, and the other has Centurylink(labeled Qwest). No one has even heard of AT&T or Verizon DSL up here, and is only familiar with their Wireless services. everyone has heard about how mediacom is the shittiest company around tho.

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
reply to Klarth
3mbit for 28 a month isn't overly bad and 150 GB isn't so rotten for mid range use as long as you stay with SD video


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

1 recommendation

reply to Klarth
Too bad. Never mind then, I'll edit the piece, thanks. Socking customers with these hikes is one thing, but insulting customer intelligence just adds insult to injury.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to Karl Bode
...and their tier caps actually scale up with price in a reasonable fashion. You may have to upgrade a tier if you use a lot of data and aren't paying a lot per month, but after 999GB you really want a business class connection anyway, and I'll bet Mediacom would be happy to sell you one.

Any way you slice it, these caps are more sensible than Comcast's various trials, Suddenlink's caps, or TWC's attempts.

Klarth

join:2005-09-16
Oronogo, MO
Reviews:
·Mediacom
I agree, for what it's worth. Personally, I don't really need a 50mbps line (but respect people who do), but like you say it's the cost you pay for the cap that you do need. I also personally think that 1TB is a reasonable cap (again, your mileage may vary). That part is OK, but the problem is when they don't offer their Ultra tier in many areas (well, that and insulting our intelligence with such transparent lies as to why they are adding caps). Though that said, like you say, there are worse companies out there, for now.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Karl Bode
As far as caps, one day, it will be the norm for all companies. What will ISPs do when speeds are so fast, and wireless tech reaches so far, that one subscriber can open his network for his entire street? So, on this persons wifi, hes supplying IPTV / Torrents, data, and VoIP for everyone. Todays speeds are tomorrows dialup, and the ISPs wont be able to allow 1 subscriber on each street.

The only way to prevent such misuse is usage billing.

Breaking a TOS? Yea, that works real well, and good luck enforcing it.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

1 recommendation

reply to Klarth
Whether a cap is "reasonable" doesn't really change the fact that these companies are using a lack of competition to impose rate hikes on already pricey tiers (by global developed country standards). They can already push excessive users on to business tiers. All these caps do is encourage upselling and abuse, especially if your only competitor is a low-quality DSL provider that offers capped 3 Mbps DSL.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Well, yes.

On the bright side, they're mainly competing against providers who have DSL as their bread and butter. Which is more than can be said of the likes of Comcast in many areas (ahem, Verizon).


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Whether a cap is "reasonable" doesn't really change the fact that these companies are using a lack of competition to impose rate hikes on already pricey tiers (by global developed country standards).

Please. Look at TV. Some people have cable, TWO satellite companies and either u-verse or FiOS as options. Not to mention OTA and internet viewing. Yet good luck getting cable, satellite or U-verse/FiOS under $70 a month at regular price. So having 4 pay TV options( and the threat of cord cutting via OTA and internet viewing ) has not done a thing to lower pricing. What makes you think having more ISPs in an area would be any different?

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
It works but only in select areas with select companies.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to bn1221
It's not like you'd be doing much HD viewing at 3 Mbps anyway.

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to Klarth
ha sounds like Suddenlink!, underdeveloped and charge $$ for overages


RyanThaDude
Indiana's No. 1 Zero

join:2004-01-24
Walkerton, IN
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to Karl Bode
Exactly. I have no other choice as CenturyLink won't offer us DSL because of being too far (even though I live in a populated town), and we have no other means of higher caps since they don't offer any higher speeds other than 20mbps. Very anti-competitive, shit service. It's been the WORST company I've dealt with, for sure!

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House

1 recommendation

reply to Klarth
said by Klarth:

I think you're giving them too much credit.

+1

If this was really about reducing impact on other users...

"We have a small subset of customers that are using a very large portion of the available bandwidth, which can have a negative impact on the other internet users in the surrounding area," says a Mediacom employee in our forums reading from a script. "By curbing this behavior, other customers can benefit with faster speeds."

... they would have gone to tiered throttling.

Heavy downloader hits ___GB, throttle to 75%. Next ___GB, throttle to 50%. And so forth, until they're down to a couple of Mbps.

Just follow the money trail. It's more profitable to bill for overages than throttle down heavy users.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to Karl Bode
Their own customer service reps and customers don't even know what the word bandwidth means and use it improperly. No wonder there is so much confusion. They're saying to their customers we've sold you a connection but you're not allowed to actually use it.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to rebus9
Or simply not oversell their network in the name of squeezing more profits. That is what results in congestion.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to iansltx
Except there is no relation between the speed of the connection and the amount of traffic transferred. There is zero justification for caps. Caps have nothing to do with congestion management. If they didn't want congestion to happen then they shouldn't be overselling the nodes to squeeze out more profit.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to 88615298
It works elsewhere and in other countries.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to 34764170
There is a positive correlation between the speed of someone's connection and the amount of data that they transfer over it, probably because there's a positive correlation between price and amount of transfer used, all else equal.

Yes, caps low enough that people hit them are a revenue source. If you don't like it, you should build your own ISP and find out what the cost of last-mile bandwidth really is. The same economies of scale that make you reluctant to do that also allow Mediacom to come up with a number that represents the overall cost per GB that crosses their network, and it's not as close to zero as you might think.

Also, in an ideal world (not saying this is happening with Mediacom) higher-end users pay for the network upgrades for the node. A bunch of 10M users would probably be just fine with a couple of DOCSIS channels bonded per node. Add in a few 50M and 105M high-end folks and you now need four, six or even eight channels. Those line cards cost money. So Mediacom matches incremental revenue to incremental expenses and makes a profit.

Would they be able to add in as much profit in a more competitive environment? Nope. But it's downright scary to become a new competitor in wireline communications, unless you're coming in with a tech that others can't match without significant effort. Marginal costs for the incumbent, sans upgrades, are just too low. So it takes someone with balls like Google to do this these days.