RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | No wonder... Providing at least 1 megabit/sec download for 18 of 24 hours and email uptime of 95% isn't much of a target, is it? I'd be hopping mad if mine was that bad. If the cable system can't even hit those low marks it must be truly horrible. By comparison, my 1536/288 DSL connection has maybe a total of six hours downtime per year, including scheduled maintenance, bitrates are rock-solid and as-advertised, and email is rarely out for more than 15-20 minutes a month if that.
"...but the original cable-modem specific guidelines have been pulled from the measure entirely."
I wonder how much longer before the CATV provisions fall, too, or that the term "outage" is redefined? |
|
|
|
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| As far as I know, the standards were intentionally set very low. These standards were not meant to mimic business-class service levels. They were meant to provide some sort of floor, beneath which Comcast couldn't just shrug and say "Since you currently have sync (at this instant), you have no problem. Is there anything else I can help you with?" |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | That's just it. Mine is residential ADSL (and via SBC of all companies) and I would be screaming if I had to put up with a 25% connectivity downtime average and email outages of over an hour a day. Comcast's service in that area must set new standards for "horrid".
Good luck to you all. |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
Amazing how spoiled we have become compared to just a year or two ago. Now 1mb download speed is considered crappy ?!?!
How many of you realize that you were paying $20 per month for a barely working, flakey 28.8k dialup account and now for $50 or less you get a mostly on 1mb+ connection.
And you complain about paying $50, yet if it doesn't work you can't live without it. If Internet access was as life sustaining as people make it out to be, then I would think you would be willing to pay $100+ for the service if it was good quality.
I do a fair amount of downloading and a I am an avid online gamer (first person shooter). I have never had a need for more than 512k of consistent, low latency bandwidth. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
| No, 1 megabit isn't crappy. Hitting that target only 75% of the time being acceptable is crappy.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-22 13:18:15] |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to RadioDoc
Well, 95% per week does mean that an 8 hour outage on any given day puts them in violation. As well, a 6 hour high usage period on one node could put them in violation of the 18 hours at 1 megabit requirement. The provisions also say that service may not be completely down for 30 minutes, or less than 512kb for more than 60 minutes nor provided upload bandwidth under 128kb for more than 60 minutes.
The email standards are not just the servers being up, but transmitting outbound messages within 5 minutes (95% of the time).
Each individual violation (per user) is worth anywhere from 10% of the monthly fee for that user to $1,000 per user.
The cable tv provisions won't fall because there is much more backing those up and those are actually far more lenient than the cable internet provisions (esp considering it takes a bit more to lose cable tv compared to cable internet).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | I'm not sure cable TV provisions are far more lenient.
For example, a TV outage is defined as the loss of a single channel. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to RadioDoc
The franchise agreement gives the cable franchise one day to restore service and exempts them for circumstances beyond their control (i.e. a failure on behalf of a programming provider), so it does seem to be more lenient in comparison.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | In the same vein, Comcast wouldn't be held liable for failure of the backbone, just the local part of their network, and advertised services (email, webspace). |
|
| reply to bobbinbob
said by bobbinbob:
How many of you realize that you were paying $20 per month for a barely working, flakey 28.8k dialup account and now for $50 or less you get a mostly on 1mb+ connection.
And you complain about paying $50, yet if it doesn't work you can't live without it. If Internet access was as life sustaining as people make it out to be, then I would think you would be willing to pay $100+ for the service if it was good quality.
i paid for dialup when it was the only option, prior to the dsl/cable/broadband boom of the late 90's. When broadband became available, dialup suddenly wasn't worth $0.01 to me, and when my cable stops working (cuz Comcast sucks) i use netzero and pay nothing for it. Things change. When/if an alternative comes along that's 5mbit/512 for $65/mo, I wont value cable as much. Perhaps its not that i wont value it, but i wont want it because there's better deals in town. Capitalism at its best right? Dialup is more reliable now than it was 5 years ago, and its free (in some cases).. yet i choose to pay for a connection that sometimes is waay faster and is generally a better deal: $12 for dialup vs. $60 for something 30 times faster [sometimes], is always on and can be shared across all the computers in my house easily.. the choice is a no-brainer for me.
the internet is a life sustaining thing for some... i make my money from it. if i have no access to the net, i cant make money. And if a DSL provider would improve their lines in my area (sbc) then I would gladly pay for a quality $100 connection. The problem is that companies are more than willing to take your money, and give you just a little bit above what it would take to piss you off enough to leave. In comcast's case, they're a monopoly in most area's, therefore, they can dip well below that, because they know you have no where else to go.
Personally, i feel that instead of instituting a broadband "bill of rights" we should opt to institute a simple law: No monopolies. When there is no competition in a given area, the government steps in and creates it with a municipally-run ISP, or the city/county goes on the hunt for an ISP who will create competition. The market will beat comcast into shape, not some stupid $1000 fine. Line-sharing isn't the answer--that's not competition. The phone company is 1 isp, period. The cable company is another. None of this Earthlink over TW lines or what not. The cable & phone companies need to go head to head, or cable vs. dsl vs. ftth vs. satellite vs. other alternatives. Thats real competition: people know DSL is better for gaming, but cable is generally faster, so people should have the choice on which they want (between those 2 at a minimum). Right now however, people are stuck with one or the other usually, and in that case, they're stuck with whatever the ISP decides to hand out to them, be it a quality service, pure crap (like comcast), or something in the middle.
This entire industry is so messed up... and the FCC really isn't helping. Slapping huge monopolies on the wrist isnt the answer either. Nor is 'pseudo competition' via line-sharing. We need REAL competition. Let capitalism do its thing, even if it involves action from the government to get it started.
Just my view on all this BS
-fuzy
--
[referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I agree: competition is the answer. But in the here-and-now, it ain't happenin'
At least not for me - and many others as well.
So in the meantime, we're must somehow deal with an unregulated monopoly.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-22 16:32:21] |
|
| In before we get a certain member who will come flying to the aid of Comcast.
When you hold a franchise and/or monopoly, you need to be bound by certain terms and provisions. If you cannot hold your end, then you need to make way for someone who will. |
|
