kenoarto
join:2003-06-20
Chicago, IL
|  SBC DSL bait and swtich is illegal...1500=750?
Been working on this for two months. 1500/128 usually yeilds an actual 750/96. Had much better results with another provder.
20% loss via"Overhead" is SBCs problem, not ours.
Occasioanlly we, get to 1200 down and we're supposed to be happy with that.
We must protest. This is a classic "bait and switch".
This lawsuit is ready for the ICC and several other governmental consumer fraud divisions. |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI | Are you on the package that SBC advertises as 384Kbps-1.5Mbps 128Kbps? Not that it matters, but there is also Section 3 of the TOS.
|
|
lev
Napoleon is always right
Premium,Ex-mod 2002-08
join:2001-05-30
Chicago, IL
clubs:  | reply to kenoarto
If you want help making the connection better, post a message to that effect. Otherwise, you're doing nothing more than ranting. |
|
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| reply to kenoarto
1200-1300 is typical for a 1500 DSL connection as unlike 760 being over provision at 850 or so... that can't be done with 1500 as that is the technical limit for 3 miles... there is no extra head room, like there is with lower rate plans.
If you live real close to the CO you might even see 1400 something but 12-1300 is typical for most at any distance.
In the end all residential DSL is "best effort" you are welcome to take it or leave it.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
[text was edited by author 2003-08-01 02:48:12] |
|
BurntCricket
Gotta Do What Ya Gotta Do
Premium
join:2000-09-02
Here
clubs:
| reply to kenoarto
Good luck on the lawsuit >> as soon as a court/lawyer reads "up-to" and 384-1500 you will be shown the door.
--
Everything is relative and subjective.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-01 07:04:26] |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to kenoarto
If you don't like the 20% loss then go build a protocol that is better than TCP/IP. And yes I don't see how you could be unhappy with 1200 down.
Of course if you don't like SBC you could get service from another provider. You will still only get up to 20% of the advertised speeds because EVERYBODY on the internet uses TCP/IP including the ISP you switch to but you will probably be paying more for less. Here in Florida I pay $50/month for 512 and usually get about 400-450. I would be very happy for 1200 down.
--
"Knowhutimean, Vern?" - Ernest P. Worrell »www.maxolasersquad.com |
|
salahx
join:2001-12-03
Saint Louis, MO
| said by Maxo  :
If you don't like the 20% loss then go build a protocol that is better than TCP/IP. And yes I don't see how you could be unhappy with 1200 down.
Of course if you don't like SBC you could get service from another provider. You will still only get up to 20% of the advertised speeds because EVERYBODY on the internet uses TCP/IP including the ISP you switch to but you will probably be paying more for less. Here in Florida I pay $50/month for 512 and usually get about 400-450. I would be very happy for 1200 down.
Actually the majority of the overhead isn't because of TCP/IP, its because of ATM (53 octet cells - 48 octet payload, 5 octet header). The PPPoE overhead is 8 octets per MTU (normally 1500 - this size of 1 Ethernet frame) The IP overhead is only 20 octets per MTU - PPPoE (normally 1492) and the TCP overhead is only 24 octets per MSS (normally 1452
So thus:
PPPoE overhead is 0.53 %
IP overhead is 1.30 %
TCP overhead is 1.65 %
ATM overhead, on the other hand is, 9.4 %
For total overhead of about 12.9 %
So therefore on a "perfect" line the max speed would be a tad over 1,300 kbps.
Furthermore, ATM has services on top of it like IP does with TCP and UDP, introducing more overhead, for example, bridging Ethernet over ATM. Also, many of the data protocols within IP/TCP/UDP have even MORE overhead, depending on the protocol.
Ever DSL provider does it the same way, the only way for a real improvement is to drop ATM, which isn't going to happen, as it is far too useful to drop, even with that kind of overhead. |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| reply to kenoarto
said by kenoarto :
Been working on this for two months. 1500/128 usually yeilds an actual 750/96. Had much better results with another provder.
20% loss via"Overhead" is SBCs problem, not ours.
Occasioanlly we, get to 1200 down and we're supposed to be happy with that.
We must protest. This is a classic "bait and switch".
This lawsuit is ready for the ICC and several other governmental consumer fraud divisions.
You put overhead in quotes, so perhaps you don't understand how it works. Let me see if I can explain.
Let's say you're surfing yahoo.com. Yahoo needs to send you a packet of data. Most of this packet of data is the actual website's content, but a small percentage of it is the destination that the packet needs to go to (that's you), that is, your IP address and such. This information HAS to be in the packet or the packet will never get to you. SBC delivers the entire packet to you, and your computer discards the destination info (since it has already reached its destination) and you get the remainder. The part that is discarded is overhead.
Now, you may say that's SBC's problem and they should ensure that your actual throughput is 1500, but that's not what you signed up for. The SBC TOS (and advertising) specifically states that the download speed advertised is SYNC rate, and NOT throughput. Furthermore, as mentioned above, you signed up for 384-1.5 service. Every speed you've mentioned so far falls within that range.
If an investment company promises you a 15 to 40% return on your money and the return ends up being 30%, do you sue for bait and switch? Of course not. The return fell within the promised range.
--
Hate spam? Join the insanity. A new thread was just started. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to salahx
said by salahx :
Actually the majority of the overhead isn't because of TCP/IP, its because of ATM (53 octet cells - 48 octet payload, 5 octet header).
Yes, I meant to put TCP and ATM but for whatever reason I slipped.
--
"Knowhutimean, Vern?" - Ernest P. Worrell »www.maxolasersquad.com |
|
kenoarto
join:2003-06-20
Chicago, IL
| reply to AmeritecTech
What a bunch of consumer idiocy. This rip off is much more similar going to the lunch deli, ordering a pound of food but only getting 1/2 pound. Then the other fools in line say "Hey I only got ripped off by 20% you should be gratefull".
I had DSL at this address two years ago. Back then, I was only promised 750, but I always got at leat 1.5 and frequently got twice that. So it's not a hardware/distance problem on my end.
SBC is infamous for being having really poor service, and is an admited dishonest corportation. They've paid many corporate fines in the millions of dollars for their poor customer policies.
PS The SBC guy suggested that we should shut up if we don't like what SBC "gives" us. We are paying customers with legal rights (including freedom of speech). If there is smething wrong with our equipment, then we should get less than 1.5. If it's an SBC problem, then they must fix it. Period. |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| said by kenoarto :
What a bunch of consumer idiocy. This rip off is much more similar going to the lunch deli, ordering a pound of food but only getting 1/2 pound. Then the other fools in line say "Hey I only got ripped off by 20% you should be gratefull".
I had DSL at this address two years ago. Back then, I was only promised 750, but I always got at leat 1.5 and frequently got twice that. So it's not a hardware/distance problem on my end.
SBC is infamous for being having really poor service, and is an admited dishonest corportation. They've paid many corporate fines in the millions of dollars for their poor customer policies.
PS The SBC guy suggested that we should shut up if we don't like what SBC "gives" us. We are paying customers with legal rights (including freedom of speech). If there is smething wrong with our equipment, then we should get less than 1.5. If it's an SBC problem, then they must fix it. Period.
That was mostly incomprehensible, but I'd like to clarify one thing. You say that you frequently got double of 1.5, or 3 megabit. Were you on the 159 dollar 6 megabit plan? Because I can almost guarantee you that you never got 3 megabit on a 768 plan, nor a 1.5 plan.
--
Hate spam? Join the insanity. A new thread was just started. |
|
kenoarto
join:2003-06-20
Chicago, IL
| What do you need further explained? I'm happy to help you understand why most consumers expect 1500 as advertised. Overhead is not our problem, it's SBC's.
Demanding that we accept "20% overhead" is like going to the new car showroom buying a muscle car and later finding out it won't go more than 50 mph unless you pay even more money for the extra large engine.
SBC should accept the concept of going the extra yard for the customer. 1500 should be minimum with plenty of extra room at the top. The "bakers dozen" concept.
FYI My previous service was with another provider. It was a contract 750/350 for $29/month.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-04 02:01:30] |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| said by kenoarto :
What do you need further explained? I'm happy to help you understand why most consumers expect 1500 as advertised. Overhead is not our problem, it's SBC's.
Demanding that we accept "20% overhead" is like going to the new car showroom buying a muscle car and later finding out it won't go more than 50 mph unless you pay even more money for the extra large engine.
SBC should accept the concept of going the extra yard for the customer. 1500 should be minimum with plenty of extra room at the top. The "bakers dozen" concept.
FYI My previous service was with another provider. It was a contract 750/350 for $29/month.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-04 02:01:30]
So your argument is not that SBC should give what's advertised, but rather, that it should give a bit more than what's advertised, right? Well, that's an okay argument, I suppose, but that's not bait and switch by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it illegal, nor is this a decent lawsuit, nor will any consumer fraud groups be interested.
--
Hate spam? Join the insanity. A new thread was just started. |
|
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| reply to kenoarto
said by kenoarto :
Demanding that we accept "20% overhead" is like going to the new car showroom buying a muscle car and later finding out it won't go more than 50 mph unless you pay even more money for the extra large engine.
So you are saying that the same car should not be subject to the laws and physics and perform as if it were in a frictionless environment... no air drag, no road fiction, and no combustion inefficientcy....
Unh hunh... hope you find your dream world someday... until then reality rules.
You are getting the 1.5mbs of data... that some of it is taken up by making it all work... oh well.
How come you aren't bitching at TV stations that aren't showing you 22 lines of your 525.5 line picture because they are required for the sync signals that make it all hang together and viewable???
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX | reply to kenoarto
Also, don't forget to file a lawsuit against your monitor manufacturer. That 17 inch monitor is only 16 inches viewable. |
|
kenoarto
join:2003-06-20
Chicago, IL
| reply to AmeritecTech
said by AmeritecTech :
... Well, that's an okay argument, I suppose, but that's not bait and switch by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it illegal, nor is this a decent lawsuit, nor will any consumer fraud groups be interested.
Having lost several consumer lawysuits and jugdements the very recently, a employees of SBC have proven themselves to be very poor judges of consumer laws and ethics. Imagine that!?! |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| said by kenoarto :
said by AmeritecTech :
... Well, that's an okay argument, I suppose, but that's not bait and switch by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it illegal, nor is this a decent lawsuit, nor will any consumer fraud groups be interested.
Having lost several consumer lawysuits and jugdements the very recently, a employees of SBC have proven themselves to be very poor judges of consumer laws and ethics. Imagine that!?!
I'm not an SBC employee.
Please explain how you can win a lawsuit when SBC delivers exactly what's advertised (1500 k/s sync rate).
--
Hate spam? Join the insanity. A new thread was just started. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to kenoarto
What you are failing to miss is that your speed plan is up to 1500 throughput. Not you actual download speed but throughput speed. If you were paying for 750 with another provider and got 1500 it was an error on their part. If you paid for a package that said you would get 1500 then that's one thing but if you read the agreement you would know that your are on an up to 1500 contract. You're food metaphor doesn't work because you don't pay for an up to quarter pounder. SBC isn't doing anything that any other DSL provider doesn't do. Sprint does it, Bellsouth, AOL and all the other providers also. I've heard of people getting higher than advertised speed. It was a human error by someone at SBC. When SBC does something to crap on the consumer you can ask the people here and they will tell you that what SBC did/does sucks. We have no problem with criticising SBC but we also defend SBC when someone spouts something incorrect such as you are doing. If you are unhappy that's your right. But if you think you are being wronged then you are incorrect. You are getting what you signed up for, if you don't like it then look in a mirror and complain to yourself because you signed up for it either knowing what you were signing up for or failing to read your agreement. It wasn't in the fine print.
--
"Knowhutimean, Vern?" - Ernest P. Worrell »www.maxolasersquad.com |
|
kenoarto
join:2003-06-20
Chicago, IL
| reply to AmeritecTech
SBC thinks that it is OK to deliver 20% less than advertised by trying behind thinly disguised techno mumbo jumbo. They also think that 50% is "good enough". There is your classic consumer fraud. It's also called bait and switch. It's another very winable class action lawsuit. It's gonna cost SBC millions again--why not just fix their problems TODAY and avoid the extra legal costs, fines?
Once again SBC, shows itself to be a terrible corporate citizen. |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| Heh. "Sync rate" may be technical, but its not mumbo jumbo. It refers to the rate at which your modem communicates with the central office. Your sync rate is 1536 k/s.
SBC does not advertise throughput rates. They advertise sync rates. Look it up. If you find different, show me (but you won't).
--
Hate spam? Join the insanity. A new thread was just started. |
|
