tonytoca
join:2000-12-18
Gainesville, FL |  reply to micl
Re: Riding the fence
Touche !!!!...."Unlimited Connection" does not mean "fat pipe" does it? I was duped into thinkin unlimited connection meant "always-on" aka no fuzzy ack tones purring down my telephone line.
E Pluribus Unum |
|
HejHogg
@attbi.com | reply to coastdweller4
So coastdweller, how long have you been working for Commcast ? |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to micl
said by micl  :
Splitting hairs is no defense.
LOL, tell that to Clinton.
Seriously, legally it is a defense.
Only morally is it a crime.
BTW they no longer use the term. I guess they decided they didn't offer unlimited service anymore. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to coastdweller4
said by coastdweller4 :
As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business whether they can handle the added business or not. Today, everyone thinks they can be a broadband, webhosting, ISP, provider.
That might be true in areas where competition exists. But Comcast enjoys a monopoly in much of their footprint - in which case, what you call "riding the fence", I'd call "cherry picking". |
|
micl
Visit Lovely Downtown Port Starboard
Premium
join:2001-10-25
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to AthlGrond
said by AthlGrond :
They never said "unlimited bandwidth", they said an "unlimited connection". (or something equally vague) The running theory is that the claim is to the fact that you can stay connected as much as you like (unlike dialup).
WTF does 'unlimited connection' mean? I would argue that using the term "unlimited" is an accepted term in the marketplace that means "unlimited bandwidth". If unlimited connection means "always on", then I think they would have used that term since that is the accepted terminology that most everyone else uses in the industry.
Splitting hairs is no defense.
[edit: clarity]
--
If I don't see you in the future, I'll see you in the pasture
[text was edited by author 2003-09-15 15:11:52] |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| reply to micl
said by micl :
..."unlimited bandwidth", then Comcast in running afoul of fair trade practices and should be held accountable. ...
They never said "unlimited bandwidth", they said an "unlimited connection". (or something equally vague) The running theory is that the claim is to the fact that you can stay connected as much as you like (unlike dialup).
And if you read the TOS you will see that the connection is most certainly limited. Although there isn't a clear bandwidth limit stated, there are plenty of other kinds of limits. (No servers for example.)
I don't think any legal action is going to work in this case. |
|
micl
Visit Lovely Downtown Port Starboard
Premium
join:2001-10-25
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to coastdweller4
said by coastdweller4 :
Economics
As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business whether they can handle the added business or not. Today, everyone thinks they can be a broadband, webhosting, ISP, provider.
Comcast is obviously protecting their assets (Their customer base) yet allowing the customer to think there is no limit, and that friends is riding the fence.
Nothing wrong with it.
Whether they are protecting their assets or not, they can't just lie to their customers in the name of competition.
If any customers reasonably rely on their representation of unlimited bandwidth and then get disconnected for excercising their "unlimited bandwidth", then Comcast in running afoul of fair trade practices and should be held accountable.
--
If I don't see you in the future, I'll see you in the pasture |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to coastdweller4
said by coastdweller4 :
Nothing wrong with it.
Until that same customer base ends up with one of the posts from that fence up their "asset".
While this is a classic case of "what the large print giveth, the small print taketh away", it doesn't make it a good business practice. In fact, it shows a rather large disdain for customers, who are treated the same way most monopolies treat any captive audience.
The real reason for this is they are trying to drive off the heavy users so they can bilk granny out of an additional $30+ a month to just get email, surf the soap opera message boards and maybe look a the occasional picture of the grandkids, which may 10-20 megabytes a month. They don't want heavy giga-users and would be real happy if they all went away. |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| reply to coastdweller4
said by coastdweller4 :
... As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business ...
I had not thought of that as the reason for not saying what the limit is. But you are probably right about that. |
|
coastdweller4
"Teh Fff Wizard"
join:2002-01-29
Modesto, CA
| Economics
Leave the customer with the illusion of "PLENTY OF BANDWIDTH" and stay out of "FEATURE WARS"
As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business whether they can handle the added business or not. Today, everyone thinks they can be a broadband, webhosting, ISP, provider.
Comcast is obviously protecting their assets (Their customer base) yet allowing the customer to think there is no limit, and that friends is riding the fence.
Nothing wrong with it. |
|
