| |rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
Fine...bring back the periodic (say weekly or monthly) rpts A friend of mine has been running an Internet connected business for over 15 years. He used to get a usage report from Worldcomm every billing cycle (monthly), and he was charged on the 90th percentile (or was that 95th?) of usage. How about these Internet companies who want to go to UBB emailing a report every billing cycle (or maybe more often to gauge things like monthly Microsoft updates)? Then we'll find out just how much we're using, not just when we're pissing them off. We'll also have some sort of sense of what we're getting for our $45/mo. or whatever.
Also don't forget this is by no means "automatic." Your hard-earned subscription dollars must go into purchasing, testing, and maintaining all this monitoring and additional billing equipment and software, not to mention CSRs and phone systems to handle the inevitable cases of cheesed off customers calling up to dispute their bills. Prima facia, it seems all would be better if they just let their networks run, and keep up reasonably with capacity needs. That way they're monitoring just one point (the uplink to the Internet) instead of hundreds or thousands.
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck!
Re: They are trying...
said by EdmundGerber:Maybe because the caps are much higher. Comcast's is 250GB and then they can but usually don't hammer you unless you are also in the very heaviest users on a node.
... to cap you like they are trying to do in Canada, amercians - where's the outrage against this stuff? Here in Canada we are freaking out, and maybe doing some good because of it.
Q&A on policy:
said by mlcarson:"Decades"? Consumer broadband was practically non-existant before the mid-90's.
Again, why isn't the answer to this the decreasing of the maximum speed rather than metered billing or caps? The answer is because the providers want to have it both ways. They want to advertise these great download speeds but don't have the infrastructure for you to actually use them. The flat rate billing has worked for decades -- there's no reason to change it except to gouge the consumer.
Re: Again... I had ISDN Internet service in 1990. It was a flat rate. I had standard dialup service in the late 80's and that was a standard flat rate. The idea of usage based billing is coming from the telco's because they love that model; it worked so well for them with phone service (both POTS and cellular). It has no place on the Internet. It's just a potential cash cow for them.
said by dynodb:
"Decades"? Consumer broadband was practically non-existant before the mid-90's.
Re: How sudden.
said by Pashune:What is honest about them trying to say 25 GB a month is reasonable when their own usage meter is showing that any cap less than 100 GB a month would be outrageously unreasonable. People who use only 30% above average aren't internet hogs but the ISPs who want low caps and high overage charges sure are greedy about wanting extra turns at the trough.
Egad, Suddenlink suddenly disconnected...
Their name is pretty fitting to their practices. At least they're honest.
Re: bandwidth meters
said by tech8:Well, it's a pathetically stupid idea. Especially when their bandwidth meter has hit the streets with talk right when their premium email service has crapped out. SL is possibly going to have a nasty black eye with the email fiasco for a while. Especially when commercial customers like myself appear to have lost a boatload of very important email. I would not advise raising prices on high bandwidth customers for a while. Otherwise they might have way more bandwidth for the remaining customers than they need. You like the phrase "mass exodus" Gary?
As usual the biggest users are the ones whining the most. If you drive a Humvee and a Honda up to the gas station should both pay the same? If so...then obviously the Honda driver is paying
for the hummer. Bottom line is bandwidth (circuits) cost money.
Networks cost money to build, operate, and upgrade. Government
built networks just shift the costs to others via tax schemes. Usage based billing is the only fair answer to this.
| |DHRacerTech Monkey
Lake Arrowhead, CA
If UBB, then I want no ads, no spam emails, etc If you're going to charge me for every last bit and byte that gets past my modem, then I had better not be paying for all the crap I didn't request to receive like ads on webpages, spam emails and other crap that contributes to my usage total but is something that I can't block until after it gets past my modem where its then too late.
Oh, Suddenlink, you say you're just going to charge me for everything? Then go to hell, Suddenlink. I shouldn't have to stop using the connection I pay for just to avoid paying for stuff I shouldn't be paying for. Stick to flat rate pricing or watch your user base plummet...
P.S. I'm not a Suddenlink customer but I hope it doesn't "infect" my ISP with any dumb ideas...
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.)
Re: lol 25gb really?
said by Monie:gee I wonder what you are doing to use that much?
I use about 1.3TB a month, but I have fiber so meh. lol
Pay More--Get Less! Just got the usage meter notice in my mailbox yesterday. I spent an hour and a half online verifying that it wasn't intended as some sort of warning, but I'm really concerned about where this is going. They've jacked up our rates for the last three or four months running, and it seems like we've had to call them every other week for the last solid year to figure out why our bundled phone service isn't working--again. It seems to be a general trend towards paying more and more for less and less service.
If Suddenlink decides on a restrictive download cap, we're going to move to DSL, even if we have to take a speed hit. We're not going to be prodded into using Suddenlink's Pay-Per-View service, not like this. We've had Suddenlink for about six years, and until the last year and a half or so, we weren't displeased with it, and we'd rather NOT have to go to the trouble of moving, but if their service continues to decline while becoming simultaneously more draconian AND more expensive, then goodbye, Suddenlink--hello, AT&T.
Mineral Wells, TX
Re: Pay More--Get Less! you and me both, 78 gb really thats the highest suddenlink??, yall got to be kiddin, AT&T has caps yes, but at least its pretty reasonable compared to yalls, if thats the case suddenlink, well be prepared to loose a bunch of people. With AT&T caps at 150 gb, yall will loose much, and also since dsl is about every where yall are, good luck!!