Why Are ISPs Still Advertising Limited Services As Unlimited? Better question: why are they still getting away with it? For years, both landline and wireless carriers have been marketing their broadband services as unlimited, then burying some very real limits deep in their usage agreement fine print. Some companies stopped this only after users spent years complaining, like when Comcast used to pretend their service didn't have any limits. In other cases it required government intervention, like when NY's Attorney General busted Verizon Wireless for falsely advertising their EVDO service as unlimited, then sending users letters threatening disconnection for using too much bandwidth. That's why it's surprising to see carriers still trying to get away with it (and succeeding). During their recent launch of the much ballyhooed HTC G1, T-Mobile's advertising proclaimed that users get "unlimited web access." We were the first to notice that buried in the fine print was the fact that users who consumed more than 1GB per month could find their service throttled back to 50kbps or less. After we approached T-Mobile with the contradiction, the company pulled the language from their terms of service -- not wanting to ruin the PR launch party for their new, next-gen broadband-driven phone. According to T-Mobile, this was only a soft cap they had no plans on enforcing. Several months later the language quietly returned, this time with a much more generous 10GB monthly cap T-Mobile plans to employ for all smart phones. While more reasonable, the cap is still being marketed as unlimited. T-Mobile isn't alone. Techdirt points out that the unlimited misnomer is also a favorite marketing tactic of a small company by the name of Cricket, who advertises their mobile data service as " unlimited," only to once again bury very concrete limits in their terms of service. The carrier's website informs users they "get all the blogs, videos and music downloads you want," but their fine print says something else entirely: Throughput may be limited if use exceeds 5GB per month. Internet browsing does not include: hosted computer applications, continuous web camera or broadcast, automatic data feeds, machine-to-machine connections, peer to peer (P2P) connections or other applications that denigrate network capacity or functionality. In this age of caps, throttled service, meters, fees and other restrictions, consumers are getting used to the fact that their connection comes with some very serious limitations. We can argue over whether all of these restrictions are necessary (particularly for terrestrial networks) until we're blue in the face, but advertising a limited service as unlimited is still false advertising. Sign me up for the $75 "granny usage EXTREME" 600kbps tier with 5GB monthly cap and $1/per GB overages if you must. Just don't lie to me.
|
  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | Maybe. Maybe they are using the old semantics arguement. We said "Unlimited web access", not "unlimited web usage".  | |
|  | | | Re: Maybe. In which case you can play the sematics game back at them...
If you have limited web usage, you no longer have unlimited web access. If you have to limit your usage, you automatically limit the amount you can access the internet.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
| | Machine-to-machine connections? "Internet browsing does not include: [...] machine-to-machine connections,"
How can you browse without connecting your machine to another machine? And what if I don't see my computer as a "machine"? | |
| | | Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... they get away with it for the same reason the DMV in CA can have this question on the test:
You can never drive faster than:
A) 55MPH
B) The posted speed limit
C) Then is safe
D) Some other inane answer...
According to the DMV it is "Than is safe"...BUT, ultimately it depends on how you frame your logic...in theory B&C are the same answer because the posted speed limit is supposed to be the MAXIMUM safe speed we are allowed to drive. But, the DMV chooses to look at it the other way around using the "than is safe" as the answer. For many it's a chicken or egg question and answer.
I suspect the same folks word the ads for the ISP's...intentionally worded to imply the widest possible interpretation and limits. Yet, later the specifics are in there...I simply do not see how they can consider a cap of any sort reasonable as cable & DSL speeds are increasing to scary fast speeds every day now.
But these things are why I have stuck by smaller independent ISP for both DSL and MBB...no caps, no limits. I do however use my MBB with a bit of care so they don't begin to get static from the actual provider. But I have my original paperwork for both services which indeed state unlimited use just don't be stupid and serve up (upload) 1TB of data every month. That is not vague at all.
--
Using Millenicom? Come visit the Unofficial Millenicom forum here on BBR »Millenicom | |
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by grumpy3b:You can never drive faster than: A) 55MPH B) The posted speed limit C) Then is safe D) Some other inane answer... in theory B&C are the same answer because the posted speed limit is supposed to be the MAXIMUM safe speed we are allowed to drive. Unfortunately, there will always be people who say "I was driving the posted limit, it shouldn't matter if the street was congested."
In my early 20s I got a few traffic tickets. Enough that I had to go to court instead of pay by mail. I remember there was some guy charged with driving 90 in a 40 mph zone (city street). The judge asked how he pled. He said "not guilty." The judge was astonished. He took a different tone, asking why this kid felt he was not guilty. The kid said "the speed limit wasn't posted." The judge asked the kid if he had his license with him. The kid said "yes." To which the judge ordered a deputy to seize it. The whole room burst into laughter.
I think the cap issue is similar. Most people interpret "unlimited" in terms of what's average for the average person. Not sharing files 24x7, running servers, etc.
Mark | |
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by amigo_boy:Most people interpret "unlimited" in terms of what's average for the average person. No, most people interpret "average" in terms of what's average for the population in question, or in terms of the usage divided by the entire population.
Unlimited already is pretty well defined, and although it has more than one definition, the word "average" doesn't appear anywhere.
# A term to describe an action not defined within narrowed limits.
or
# having no limits in range or scope; "to start with a theory of unlimited freedom is to end up with unlimited despotism"- Philip Rahv; "the ...
# outright: without reservation or exception
# inexhaustible: that cannot be entirely consumed or used up; "an inexhaustible supply of coal"
or
# In the graphic arts, the term used to describe an edition with no set quantity or restriction on quantity for printing.
or
# limitless or without bounds; unrestricted
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... Sure. And the sign that says "Speed Limit: 45" is well defined too. It's legal to drive 45. Nowhere in there does it say "unless it's pouring ran, or someone's jaywalking, or a car is stalled in the road."
If I'm not sharing files and running servers, "unlimited" looks like unlimited. If I'm "average" then that's who the term is written for.
But, there will always be those who don't fall within the average population. That's why the DMV has to ask what the legal limit is (posted, or based upon conditions).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... your point holds no water, if the speed limit sign said unlimited, then yes, your point would hold water, but it doesn't. Moot as it is, your analogy is wrong. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by ANON101Bseven :
your point holds no water, if the speed limit sign said unlimited, then yes, your point would hold water, but it doesn't.
It's relative. The signage says there is a limit, but it's not the actual limit.
Your complaint is like the kid who did 90 on the 40 mph surface street. He claimed it wasn't posted. I.e., unlimited.
Same concept.
Mark | |
| | | | | | |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by amigo_boy:said by ANON101Bseven :
your point holds no water, if the speed limit sign said unlimited, then yes, your point would hold water, but it doesn't.
It's relative. The signage says there is a limit, but it's not the actual limit. Your complaint is like the kid who did 90 on the 40 mph surface street. He claimed it wasn't posted. I.e., unlimited. Same concept. Mark In both cases there are law, rules, and regulations attached to your drivers license. In the case of the kid who claimed unlimited because it wasn't posted, guess he's never see a "Citywide Speed Limit is 35 unless otherwise posted" sign.
Besides, if it was all spelled out on the sign, you wouldn't have room left for the speed limit itself, much less time to read it. | |
| | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:Your complaint is like the kid who did 90 on the 40 mph surface street. He claimed it wasn't posted. I.e., unlimited. The flaw in your analogy is that the driver is responsible for knowing the content of the vehicle code; at least as applies to his driving. Most states are similar to California, which actually has several speed laws.
• Maximum Speed law Limit (Sect. 22349): 65 mph. unless post as 70 mph by CalTrans.
• Prima Facie Speed law Limits (Sect. 22352): No faster than is safe. 15 mph, or 25 mph, depending on conditions specified in the code.
• Basic Speed Law (Sect. 22350): 25 mph in residential areas, 15 mph in area of limited visibility. No greater than reasonable or prudent ...
No matter what, Prima Facie takes overall precedence; if it is foggy, whether the road is posted 75 mph, or not posted at all, any speed faster than that which takes you to the limit of visibility is unsafe.
There are also sections concerning the "Increase of Freeway and Local Speed Limits", one of which specifies locally established Prima Facie Speed Limits other than 15 mph and 25 mph.
If there is no posted limit, then assume Prima Facie Speed Limits; and, do not drive faster than conditions permit in any case Section 22351, titled, "Speed Law Violations", implies that the "Basic Speed Law" is taken as the overriding law.
How anything related to highway speed can be compared to "unlimited" escapes me, because the C.V.C. is pretty clear; in the absence of posted limits, there are still assumed limits. Speed is, simply put, not "unlimited".
As for Internet advertising, I have never personally seen an ISP add offering unqualified unlimited service (other than old, dated ads from the past, demonstrating that ISPs did, once, advertise so). All the actual ads I have seen in the wild have been qualified. It is not a mere game of semantics to qualify a word. And "unlimited access" != "unlimited bandwidth". My own ISP offers either "unlimited access" (for HSI) or "limited access" (for dial-up). Okay, they don't actually say, "limited access", rather they specify the actual limits in hours of connect time per month. In contrast with HSI allowing me to maintain a login session indefinitely ("unlimited access").
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | your point holds no water, if the speed limit sign said unlimited, then yes, your point would hold water, but it doesn't. Moot as it is, your analogy is wrong. Plus I subscribe to movie downloads from both Amazon, AppleTV and Netflix, I'm an average user that uses a LOT of bandwidth. | |
| | | | | | | Hi.
Unlimited = no limits. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... Unlimited:
1. Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon.
3. Without qualification or exception; absolute: unlimited self-confidence.
Karl says it very succinctly. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by DustySilicon:Unlimited: 1. Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket. 2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon. 3. Without qualification or exception; absolute: unlimited self-confidence. Karl says it very succinctly. I believe even those arguing a literal interpretation of "unlimited" would say that someone consuming 400 gig in a month would be ridiculous to claim "but it said 'unlimited.'"
That's why I believe the term is aimed at what the average person considers to be reasonable, and would experience. Those complaining are the outliers. There always will be outliers. Just like those who expect to get a dial tone even when the entire country picks up their handset at the same time.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... Hi again, it's me.
Unlimited = no limits. | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by Karl Bode:Hi again, it's me. Unlimited = no limits. And 45 mph means 45 mph.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... You're getting there! You're not speaking in recognizable English or adhering to fundamental logic yet, but we're making progress. Rome wasn't built in a day! We'll come back to it. On to lesson two! Lying. Spot the error in the attached screenshot for extra credit! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by Karl Bode:You're getting there! You're not speaking in recognizable English I'm just pointing out that, like speed limits, there is the literal interpretation and the commonly understood interpretation. It is my belief that "unlimited," to most people, means they'll never reach a limit based upon them being part of an average group with average usage patterns.
Just like 45mph means that's the limit under normal conditions.
I agree that it would shut some people up if they just printed an asterisk with footnote explaining the cap. But, I just don't think those people are anywhere near a small minority. So, there's no reason to.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by amigo_boy:said by Karl Bode:You're getting there! You're not speaking in recognizable English I'm just pointing out that, like speed limits, there is the literal interpretation and the commonly understood interpretation. It is my belief that "unlimited," to most people, means they'll never reach a limit based upon them being part of an average group with average usage patterns. Just like 45mph means that's the limit under normal conditions. I agree that it would shut some people up if they just printed an asterisk with footnote explaining the cap. But, I just don't think those people are anywhere near a small minority. So, there's no reason to. Mark Around here, speed limit signs say "Conditions Permitting". It still is not a good analogy. Also, we have driver ed classes and I think most people know how to read a speed limit sign. If Comcast starts holding classes on what "unlimited" really means, and how it means "average", then maybe you have an analogy.
However, you (or they) can't just change the definition of a word to make a point. The only meaning to "unlimited" is "no limits". | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by MrSpock29:... and I think most people know how to read a speed limit sign. That's my point. Most people know what "unlimited" means *within the context of their own use.* Just like speed limits imply "conditions apply," I believe providers use "unlimited" in the same sense. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I get unlimited use every month. Just like I feel no need to test whether I can really drive 45 when the street is congested with rush-hour traffic, I see no reason to test how much broadband I can use without reaching a limit. I never give it a second thought in either case.
said by MrSpock29:If Comcast starts holding classes on what "unlimited" really means, and how it means "average", They don't have to. The majority knows what it means. Or, better said, they never have a reason to question what it means because they are average.
The problem is that a minority of outliers want their predicament explained to those who don't have a predicament. It's just kvetching.
I think it would be more productive for DSLR to organize a "truth in labeling" movement. Lobby Congress to pass the equivalent of nutrition labeling for broadband. Standardized measurements and format of reporting so consumers can make better choices.
But instead, it's just how bad providers are, how bad government is, how everyone else should be unhappy like a few DSLR activists are.
There's nothing constructive in that.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |  major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by amigo_boy:I think it would be more productive for DSLR to organize a "truth in labeling" movement. Lobby Congress to pass the equivalent of nutrition labeling for broadband. Standardized measurements and format of reporting so consumers can make better choices. But instead, it's just how bad providers are, how bad government is, how everyone else should be unhappy like a few DSLR activists are. There's nothing constructive in that. Mark Hey, it looks like you have no clue that unlimited = no limit and you're otherwise losing your argument. Isn't it time you trotted out the good ol' standby of yours that you have used (by my count) about 100 times or so, that magical section of the U.S. code that you interpret to mean that the federal government can spy on citizens without oversight or worrying about breaking any laws. That always seems to shut people up who disagree with you and you just go on imagining that it's because you're right. 
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... I'm all for this Idea.
Broadband must be marketed as the MAXIMUM DATA PER MONTH at the MOST LIMITED protocol. Easy to compare and hard to throttle.
Problem solved  | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by amigo_boy:I believe even those arguing a literal interpretation of "unlimited" would say that someone consuming 400 gig in a month would be ridiculous to claim "but it said 'unlimited.'" That's why I believe the term is aimed at what the average person considers to be reasonable, and would experience. Those complaining are the outliers. There always will be outliers. Just like those who expect to get a dial tone even when the entire country picks up their handset at the same time. Mark 1998 - I believe even those arguing a literal interpretation of "unlimited" would say that someone consuming FOUR gig in a month would be ridiculous to claim "but it said 'unlimited.'" | |
|
| | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| He did, yes, but you did not. "Unlimted" != "unlimtited self-confidence".
"Unlimited" is an adjective, and by itself really isn't a useful word.
"Unlimited Internet", OTOH, is a useful combination, and can be assumed to imply that there are no limits to what you can get from the Internet.
"Unlimited access", is still another useful combination; but has to be taken in the context of "access to what".
You can't compose a sentence with just an adjective: What does "Mary hit the unlimited" mean?
However, the moment you apply an adjective to a noun, such as "unlimited Internet", you actually convey some meaning. | |
| | | | | | | |  aSicapplication specificPremium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... Unless the adjective is also the noun... I had a doofy cousin who used to call himself the "unlimited".
Basically I'm saying that the lesson in language is pointless. Unlimited access means just that, unlimited access...there is no context. Access to anything, everything, all you can consume, without any hindrance. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... C0deZe0
What inputs do you need? Here is a samsung TV with HDMI,SVHS, component, VGA, and RF all in a 22inch screen.
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···89102199 | |
| | | | | | |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... My current Gateway FPD2185W:
DVI - main computer
VGA - primary Dreamcast input
Component Video - run to a switch that then splits out to my current-gen consoles
S-Video and Composite - back-up Dreamcast
If I'd had at least one HDMI port (and then get a switch later) on top of these, it would free up most of my need for the switch and keep things somewhat neater. But then again, if it has at least from S-Video up to HDMI, that would cover what I'd need.
I've also considered the "HDTV as monitor" route, but to be quite frank, every type of TV that I'd seen try to double as a PC monitor only looked like ass in actual usage. Text was almost always unreadable, and icons for power apps like 3DS Max become unrecognizable on those things. And if I'm going to get a TV, I'll want 1080p, since i'd want to do it right and have something that will remain viable in long-term (a lot more than 2~3 years, that's for sure ). | |
| | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... You are probably never going to see 1080p on the smaller HDTVs. There is just no point. On a 32 inch you may be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p but on a small screen you are not.
You have to set your font/icon size appropriate for the screen size and you have to be the proper distance from the TV. For instance on my 40inch if I am closer than 4(?) feet the screen looks bad, but at 10 feet it looks wonderful. | |
| | | | | | | | | C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by Lazlow:You are probably never going to see 1080p on the smaller HDTVs. There is just no point. On a 32 inch you may be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p but on a small screen you are not. You have to set your font/icon size appropriate for the screen size and you have to be the proper distance from the TV. For instance on my 40inch if I am closer than 4(?) feet the screen looks bad, but at 10 feet it looks wonderful. I was already able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p with a 17" notebook display. I don't have the room for a 40" TV - it's simply too big to fit anywhere in my room. Even 32" would be pushing it, as I'd almost assuredly have to get a wall-mount.
And no amount of font/icon settings made any TV look any better with a computer output running through it. They just look horrible. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... Your Gateway is a 1680 x 1050, the Samsung I linked to is a 1680 x 1050.
What was the resolution of that 17 inch notebook? Maybe 1280 X1024. 720p is 1280X720 and 1080p is 1920X1080. Now if you were to say that you could see bad 720 Xvid(divx, etc) I would buy that. Poorly compressed stuff is all over the place. What kind of interface were the TV being used as monitors? A lot used to use SVHS which is limited to 480i. | |
| | | | | | | | | | C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... Dell has had several notebooks with 17" displays of 1920x1200. Currently, the upgraded 17" MacBook Pro's also enjoy this as well.
And I fail to see why it's so hard to find even a PC monitor with that resolution when so many laptops even now seem to be able to do it. You end up sitting about the same distance from either. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... Here is 4 1920X1080:
»www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi···hInDesc=
I still do not believe you can see the difference on that small of a screen. I do believe you probably were seeing poorly compressed 720p. Do you have any idea what interfaces the previous HDTVs you saw were connected with. | |
|
| | | | said by amigo_boy:Unfortunately, there will always be people who say "I was driving the posted limit, it shouldn't matter if the street was congested." That is my point...by definition the fastest one is allowed to drive at any given time under optimal conditions is the posted limit...by saying the answer is "than is safe" changes the definition of the speed limit...and yes the answer can be interpreted in favor of either answer...but under no conditions can one exceed the posted speed limit. Which to me indicates that is the 'correct' answer...
Anyway, my point was these sorts of vagaries are everywhere and open to interpretation...I was also being sarcastic that these companies are no better than the DMV... 
--
Using Millenicom? Come visit the Unofficial Millenicom forum here on BBR »Millenicom | |
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... May I respectfully suggest that you read your California Vehicle Code? Specifically Section 22350, titled, "Basic Speed Law" (and now, I must go back and edit a prior post, for failure to actually open my C.V.C. to the relevant sections, for I have posted incorrect information).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | said by amigo_boy:I think the cap issue is similar. Most people interpret "unlimited" in terms of what's average for the average person. Not sharing files 24x7, running servers, etc. It doesn't matter what people interpret unlimited to mean, because unlimited has a very specific definition. And interpretations are very oft wrong.
That's the problem. Unlimited has a definition that is clear. What is happening is ISPs are trying to change what unlimited is and then complain when people take it at dictionary definition, face value. That's just plain dirty pool.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by NetAdmin1:It doesn't matter what people interpret unlimited to mean, I disagree. Advertising is defined as helping people hear what they want to hear. If I target advertising to majority usage patterns (what the average person deems "reasonable"), then "unlimited" is anything above that.
Even those who are upset because they fall outside the pattern of averages would admit that there has to be limits. Nothing is ever truly "unlimited." So, what they're really complaining about is that they fall outside the average. And, what they suggest is that those who don't care should.
To me, that's not logical. It doesn't seem like it will ever lead to anything. Telling people they should be unhappy about something they have no reason to be unhappy about.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by amigo_boy:said by NetAdmin1:It doesn't matter what people interpret unlimited to mean, I disagree. Advertising is defined as helping people hear what they want to hear. I see your point. Thing is that for people who are educated and were taught proper English and the proper meaning of words, this type of thing is infuriating. I understand that people hear what they want, but it is problematic when what people want to hear undermines a clear concept like "unlimited."
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by NetAdmin1:I understand that people hear what they want, but it is problematic when what people want to hear undermines a clear concept like "unlimited." I agree. It's just a matter of how large the group of people are who feel it's problematic. This seems like a bell curve. If 80% use 2-3 gig per month, and I advertise to that group (with an unstated 4 gig cap), I don't care about the 10% who will be affected by the cap. The 80% is the sweet spot.
I think the problem is that "unlimited" is interpreted in a literal, scientific way instead of advertising. Everyone knows there is a difference. It's just those whom a scientific definition works in their favor insist advertising should be scientific.
I was serious about what I said before. I think it would be more constructive for DSLR to lead an effort to enact a broadband equivalent of nutrition labeling. I don't see how these whine sessions lead to anything constructive.
For example, someone else's hubris over caps doesn't move me (when, for all intents and purposes, I have unlimited bandwidth). But, standardized measurements and reporting is consistent with a free marketplace (to help buyers make informed decisions). I could give 100% support to that.
Baby steps.
Mark | |
|
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by NetAdmin1:It doesn't matter what people interpret unlimited to mean, because unlimited has a very specific definition. And interpretations are very oft wrong. We get it, we all get it. People of average intelligence get it. People of unlimited intelligence get it. We all do.
This is a question of whether there is a difference between limited and unlimited. It's a silly question.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Same reason the DMV gets away with some questions... said by funchords:This is a question of whether there is a difference between limited and unlimited. It's a silly question. I definitely agree with you on that point. I guess this is another one of those inane things in the business world that is obviously quite stupid and yet accepted despite its completely irrational nature. It definitely is prime material for a Dilbert strip.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
| funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by grumpy3b:You can never drive faster than: A) 55MPH B) The posted speed limit C) Then is safe D) Some other inane answer... E) the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s 
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
|  tcharpT CPremium
join:2002-10-23
Lubbock, TX | themonkeyz is correct as most of us know. The internet is communication between machines. That is simply how it works. There is no way to browse the internet (or do anything else on the internet) without connecting your machine to another machine.
What they are doing (in most cases) and have been doing for some time now, is selling you one thing and delivering a completely different product because they can get away with it because "average joe" (whoever that is) doesn't use everything he pays for and won't know he is being shortchanged.
-TC | |
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by grumpy3b:they get away with it for the same reason the DMV in CA can have this question on the test: You can never drive faster than: A) 55MPH B) The posted speed limit C) Then is safe D) Some other inane answer... According to the DMV it is "Than is safe"...BUT, ultimately it depends on how you frame your logic...in theory B&C are the same answer because the posted speed limit is supposed to be the MAXIMUM safe speed we are allowed to drive. But, the DMV chooses to look at it the other way around using the "than is safe" as the answer. For many it's a chicken or egg question and answer. This reminds me of a question that was on a NYS Regent's Exam (A standard test that is given to High School Students) that asked "Which Planet is furthest from the Sun?" with both Neptune and Pluto as provided choices (This was years ago when Pluto was still classified as a Planet). They wanted Pluto as the correct answer and called Neptune as an incorrect answer even though at the time of the test (and for some time before and after) Pluto was inside Neptune's orbit. Thus they were penalizing those who (due to the the lack of a qualifier like "Planet's Orbit" or "Planet is Currently") provided the correct accurate answer since Neptune WAS furthest from the Sun when the question was posed. | |
| | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by grumpy3b:they get away with it for the same reason the DMV in CA can have this question on the test: You can never drive faster than: A) 55MPH B) The posted speed limit C) Then is safe D) Some other inane answer... According to the DMV it is "Than is safe"...BUT, ultimately it depends on how you frame your logic... »www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22351.htm
I don't think your logic (or mine) has anything to do with it. It seems to say that either the Prima Facie Speed Limits (Section 22352, and 22357), or the Basic Speed Law (22350) take precedence, whichever is greater. And you will need "competent evidence" that your speed did not exceed the Basic Speed Law, in the case that you were in excess of the Prima Facie Speed Limits.
As I read Chapter 7, Article 1 of the California Vehicle Code, "C)" is the only correct answer possible. | |
| | | | quote:
they get away with it for the same reason the DMV in CA can have this question on the test:
You can never drive faster than:
A) 55MPH
B) The posted speed limit
C) Then is safe
D) Some other inane answer...
According to the DMV it is "Than is safe"...BUT, ultimately it depends on how you frame your logic...in theory B&C are the same answer because the posted speed limit is supposed to be the MAXIMUM safe speed we are allowed to drive. But, the DMV chooses to look at it the other way around using the "than is safe" as the answer. For many it's a chicken or egg question and answer.
I suspect the same folks word the ads for the ISP's...intentionally worded to imply the widest possible interpretation and limits. Yet, later the specifics are in there...I simply do not see how they can consider a cap of any sort reasonable as cable & DSL speeds are increasing to scary fast speeds every day now.
But these things are why I have stuck by smaller independent ISP for both DSL and MBB...no caps, no limits. I do however use my MBB with a bit of care so they don't begin to get static from the actual provider. But I have my original paperwork for both services which indeed state unlimited use just don't be stupid and serve up (upload) 1TB of data every month. That is not vague at all.
No, posted speed-limit is pretty much "up-to" speed.
If your on a interstate speed limit 80MPH, heavy fog or rain causes everyone to slow down to 50MPH, should you still be going 80MPH? No. | |
| |  ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC | said by grumpy3b:they get away with it for the same reason the DMV in CA can have this question on the test: You can never drive faster than: A) 55MPH B) The posted speed limit C) Then is safe D) Some other inane answer... According to the DMV it is "Than is safe"...BUT, ultimately it depends on how you frame your logic...in theory B&C are the same answer because the posted speed limit is supposed to be the MAXIMUM safe speed we are allowed to drive. But, the DMV chooses to look at it the other way around using the "than is safe" as the answer. For many it's a chicken or egg question and answer. I suspect the same folks word the ads for the ISP's...intentionally worded to imply the widest possible interpretation and limits. Yet, later the specifics are in there...I simply do not see how they can consider a cap of any sort reasonable as cable & DSL speeds are increasing to scary fast speeds every day now. But these things are why I have stuck by smaller independent ISP for both DSL and MBB...no caps, no limits. I do however use my MBB with a bit of care so they don't begin to get static from the actual provider. But I have my original paperwork for both services which indeed state unlimited use just don't be stupid and serve up (upload) 1TB of data every month. That is not vague at all. OT here but.....
B & C are not the same.
If the road has ice on it, then clearly if the posted limit is 55mph, driving at that speed is not safe in a small car. | |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | What does that Cricket legal-sounding quote even mean?! Throughput may be limited if use exceeds 5GB per month. Internet browsing does not include: hosted computer applications, continuous web camera or broadcast, automatic data feeds, machine-to-machine connections, peer to peer (P2P) connections or other applications that denigrate network capacity or functionality. Internet browsing -- it's not called an "Internet Browsing" service. They advertise it as "Broadband" »www.mycricket.com/broadband/ and even have the nerve to say "With unlimited broadband access you can email, surf and download from virtually anywhere in Cricket's coverage area."
Logo on Cricket's Broadband Page
Maybe they think that incomprehensibility is a defense, however, because they also want you to know that Internet browsing doesn't include applications that "denigrate (sic) network capacity or functionality."
hosted computer applications like DNS clients, perhaps?
continuous web camera or broadcast no video chat -- but slide shows might be okay
automatic data feeds okay, slide shows are probably not okay, but either are RSS readers
machine-to-machine connections -- in fact, you're not allowed to connect with any other Internet hosts -- just make sure that the destination IP address goes into flesh and blood instead of a "machine"
peer to peer -- note to world -- every server is a host and therefore a peer. The message "connection reset by peer" is just one thing that everyone has seen that provides testimony to that fact.
Good grief.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | A Lie Can Travel... "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".
Quote - Mark Twain | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Throttled Service Isn't a throttled service still unlimited as long as you can pass traffic and use the service? While the marketing speak needs correcting, technically you still have, and are able to use, the service if you're throttled to 50 kbps. It's significantly different than "unlimited service" that caps your usage at 10 GB and then deactivates your service until the following month. | |
| | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Throttled Service said by openbox9:Isn't a throttled service still unlimited as long as you can pass traffic and use the service? While the marketing speak needs correcting, technically you still have, and are able to use, the service if you're throttled to 50 kbps. It's significantly different than "unlimited service" that caps your usage at 10 GB and then deactivates your service until the following month. That's a very good point and I bet that is precisely what the lawyers were thinking when it was written. | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Throttled Service said by Matt:That's a very good point and I bet that is precisely what the lawyers were thinking when it was written. But it is a limit, in fact imposing a new limit to the users maximum speed becomes a second disqualifier to their ability to advertise UNLIMITED.
But I can play along. I'm in technology. I have no soul.
FUNCHORDS UNLIMITED BROADBAND (1 byte per customer per year, 1 account per customer, no customers under 9 feet tall, unlimited number of customers).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Throttled Service said by funchords:said by Matt:That's a very good point and I bet that is precisely what the lawyers were thinking when it was written. But it is a limit, in fact imposing a new limit to the users maximum speed becomes a second disqualifier to their ability to advertise UNLIMITED. But I can play along. I'm in technology. I have no soul. FUNCHORDS UNLIMITED BROADBAND (1 byte per customer per year, 1 account per customer, no customers under 9 feet tall, unlimited number of customers). You still have unlimited access and unlimited download capability. Your connection is already limited to a certain Mbps, so throttling it down to 50Kbps doesn't change that. So their argument would be that they don't mean an unlimited Mbps ... that is impossible to provide, they mean unlimited consumption. Limiting a user to, even your 1Kbps still provides for unlimited consumption, just veeeeeeeery slowly. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Throttled Service Ha ha ha. Touché. | |
|
| | i'll answer both the lawyer speak response for unlimited that i've seen justified would be that the 'average' user would feel that the service was unlimited because they would never hit the cap put in place. like most advertising claims, you can proclaim something and then argue reasoning behind it, not hard actual limits. aka 'Everything is on Sale!' - except we exclude half the items in the store in which case you should just mention the other half of the items on sale and not say everything or 'Half the Store is On Sale!'; in this case, someone entering a store where more than half was on sale would likely experience the feeling that everything was on sale.
so if a complaint was brought before a judge, he supposedly would reason that the typical user would experience unlimited speed as they would not be able to hit the cap, whereas a non-typical user, and one who was probably violating the terms of service (running a server, business, illegal file sharing, etc) might hit the cap, but the advertised terms don't apply to them.
as far as the DMV goes, the answer is correct. the speed limit is the safest speed. if you go faster than the safe speed as determined by the officer and judge, you'll get a ticket for going 'too fast for conditions' or other similar terms. the speed limit sign is the maximum allowed when safe for conditions. obviously the speed limit sign can't least all the rules on it, but you agree to abide by all traffic laws when acquiring your license so the sign doesn't need them.
and even when a speed limit sign isnt' posted, all types of roads have speed maximums under state or local law, and then adjusted by conditions or including factors that have other rules applied like someone in the crosswalk, a school zone, etc. | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: i'll answer both said by ctgottapee:the lawyer speak response for unlimited that i've seen justified would be that the 'average' user would feel that the service was unlimited because they would never hit the cap put in place. like most advertising claims, you can proclaim something and then argue reasoning behind it, not hard actual limits. Exactly. Consider your land line. They advertise that you can pick up the phone and get a dial tone. But, nobody in their right mind would believe that *everyone* in the country could pick up their phone at the *same time* and get a dial tone.
It's just understood. We don't expect the phone company to qualify their advertising with "as long as no more than 400,000 try it at the same time." The advertising, and frame of reference, is based upon averages. What the average person considers to be reasonable.
IMO, those complaining about caps are like the kid doing 90 on a 40mph surface street. They're just arguing technicalities that are irrelevant to the majority, average user.
Mark | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: i'll answer both said by amigo_boy:Consider your land line. They advertise that you can pick up the phone and get a dial tone. I've never seen such an advertisement. What I have seen are instructions to wait for a dial tone. But your argument is poorly applied to the idea of whether or not something has an arbitrarily fixed limit at the same time that it is being advertised as unlimited.
The number of trunk lines to the next town is a physical capacity based on the configuration of a telephone switch. 2.4 Mbps is a physical capacity based on the technology. 5 GB/mo. is not a physical capacity, it is a policy -- a limit imposed upon a service advertised in huge capital letters as UNLIMITED.
said by amigo_boy:IMO, those complaining about caps are like the kid doing 90 on a 40mph surface street. They're just arguing technicalities that are irrelevant to the majority, average user. Even if we were talking a 250 GB cap, a 250 GB cap is not unlimited. But add to that we're talking about a 5 GB cap on a Broadband carrier. That's just a few hours of Netflix streaming (non-HD) a month. That's less than one DVD in the Fedora set.
(It's still probably 14 kajillion emails.)
Comcast had been trying to erase its history of advertising "unlimited" service (while keeping secret the fact that it was limited). Cricket doesn't even have that defense. It is actively advertising UNLIMITED.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: i'll answer both said by funchords:I've never seen such an advertisement. Which proves my point that it's just accepted what is reasonable. The fact that you can get a dial tone just goes with selling the service.
Mark | |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Cricket FAQ-Are there limits to what I can do?»www.mycricket.com/cricketsupport···s?id=548
Cricket Broadband
Are there limits to what I can do with Cricket Broadband?
You cannot use the service:
* As a router or web server
* To initiate VOIP conversations
* As a web hosting or email service
Reminder -- 
change log
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | Re: Cricket FAQ-Are there limits to what I can do? no VoIP? go figure... | |
|
| | They advertise it as such because no one reads fine print All the ISPs bury it in the TOS because no one reads TOS agreements. Everyone signs things to their hearts content, but even though it is in the TOS, doesn't give the ISP the legal ability to do it...but they can still use it as an excuse. I mean you want the service, and not everyone can afford a lawyer on demand so...most people just sign.
quote:
That's why it's surprising to see carriers still trying to get away with it (and succeeding). During their recent launch of the much ballyhooed HTC G1, T-Mobile's advertising proclaimed that users get "unlimited web access." We were the first to notice that buried in the fine print was the fact that users who consumed more than 1GB per month could find their service throttled back to 50kbps or less.
I see nothing in there about a cap, do you? I see that as "unlimited web access" as at 50kbps you can defiantly surf pretty well on the web (minus of course streaming content/other third party content). Coming from a person who dial-up most of his life, you will find a way to use it. And it doesn't say the internet service will be denied, it just says it will be throttled.
quote:
advertising a limited service as unlimited is still false advertising.
Finally, the lightbulb clicked in someone's head.
Now if we can only get other people to realize this and "fight" back, we might have a chance to slap the providers in the face .
If a service is advertised as unlimited, and you are told that there is limit with a nice phone call. Contact your local Attorney General and have a nice chat with him about it.
If a service is not advertised as unlimited but no clear cap was set, and you get a call saying you hit the limit (as comcast used to too) also call your local AG or a lawyer. Even though they try to hide behind legalese, it still doesn't give them the right to boot you without disclosing what the limit is AND what your usage is. It will be a simple court case:
Judge: "Lets see where in your TOS it says that the limit is X and how much he used." Even though the law isn't clear cut, when you are missing specifics like that, it really weakens your case. Even if it may say something like "...reserves the right to disconnect service after non-normal data usage."
Well what is non-normal data usage?
Why can my neighbor use more data than me?
ect ect... | |
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | $1 per GB overages? Yeah I wish. "Sign me up for the $75 "granny usage EXTREME" 600kbps tier with 5GB monthly cap and $1/per GB overages if you must. Just don't lie to me."
Verizon charges $256 per GB overage and at&t charges $512 per GB. | |
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: $1 per GB overages? Yeah I wish. said by BF69:Verizon charges $256 per GB overage and at&t charges $512 per GB. Huh? That can't be right! | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: $1 per GB overages? Yeah I wish. said by funchords:said by BF69:Verizon charges $256 per GB overage and at&t charges $512 per GB. Huh? That can't be right! sure it is. Verizon charges 25 cents per MB overage. There are 1024 MB in 1 GB. 1024 X 25 cents is $256. at&t charges $0.00048/KB. There are 1,048,576 KB in a GB so that's $503. | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: $1 per GB overages? Yeah I wish. HOLY CRAP! That's criminal! | |
|
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Everyone is right...including amigo_boy... said by Tails:Everyone is right here. Nobody likes false advertising. Amigo is just explaining the reasoning behind the false advertising. Thanks. I'm not actually playing devil's advocate. Just saying there are more ways to look at this than the rigid, literal, blinkered way that the more passionate enthusiast may see it.
As I said in my last post, I can see how it would be helpful to make it clearer what the limits are. If it affected more people, I believe they would. I believe they're just targeting the average person, and what the average person would *experience* as unlimited.
We all know *nothing* is ever unlimited. Even those complaining the most about this would say that some level of use would be absurdly unrealistic. So, the question is why providers should have to tailor their ads to that exceptional minority? What's wrong with tailoring it for the majority?
But, I wouldn't mind if there was some kind of consumer protection to help consumers compare services (the same way we have nutrition labeling laws). Something that would show the average realized speeds for a tier. The max monthly limit. Cost per additional gig. Etc.
I could go for that just to help consumes make informed market choices using a common format.
I just don't go for the allegations of "false advertising." Advertising helps people hear what they want to hear. Nothing wrong with being successful at that. Those with exceptional requirements know they should be skeptical, and dig deeper. They're just kvetching.
Mark | |
| | |  TailsPremium
join:2007-09-25
Sanford, NC
kudos:2
·Windstream
3 edits | Re: Everyone is right...including amigo_boy... Maybe I should clarify what I said about false advertising:
To us, unlimited means unlimited means unlimited. We have a different definition of unlimited bandwidth, because we make better use of it. The average joe sees unlimited, but doesn't think about the same things as we do in terms of what it can be used for. Not trying to make it look like the average joe is inferior, because he is not.
These wireless broadband providers marketing "unlimited" means unlimited to those who see the advertisements, be it average joe or techsavvy user. The differences lay on the person who is using the bandwidth, and what he uses it for.
Yes, nothing is ever unlimited, and any rational thinker knows this, but these providers should NOT advertise something that has a limit , and that is what Karl is trying to say. If they bury a limit in the TOS, then they need to not put the word "unlimited" in their advertisements.
"Advertising helps people hear what they want to hear. Nothing wrong with being successful at that. Those with exceptional requirements know they should be skeptical, and dig deeper. They're just kvetching."
Are you saying that these companies have a right to false advertising? Even if I were to never pass the limit, I don't think I want trick myself into thinking that this service will always be "unlimited". That's not telling the truth IMO, and I don't think I would like to deal with a company who makes a habit of telling me lies through advertising, unless I absolutely have to.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Interesting Expectations Found here: »www.jefferies.com/pdfs/confs/090···lInc.pdf
"Current higher usage levels expected to decline over time" -- yeah, because that's how the Internet works! (Fact: Per-user consumption continues to increase year after year and has NEVER dipped.) (more)
So for Cricket Wireless to pull off a bandwidth coup that reverses Internet history, it really can only do two things -- fail to keep up with growing user demands resulting in each user getting smaller and smaller portions of a shared pool or delay/deny/degrade users Internet connections.
Question for the classroom: Since the "America Offline" debacle, has any residential broadband provider ever temporarily stopped taking new subscriptions because its systems were currently at capacity in a particular area?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Re: Interesting Expectations Verizon refuses to give me residential DSL even though I'm 5000ft from CO because they claim my central office is at capacity. They even mailed me the modem before they realized they were full and then cancelled my acct. | |
|
 Radio ActiveRadio GeekPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA
kudos:1 | Holy Crow My ISP (AT&T Wireless) doesn't advertise "unlimited"... They cap it at 5GB per month. They play fair and square enough...
Of course, I've got the Sierra Wireless USB.
--
I wonder if computers laugh at us behind our backs?
| |
| | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Just Recently... said by ctceo:I hope they stop restricting, they're only spelling their own doom if they keep it up. I just hope we can get enough people to voice their opinion. Forcing companies to be honest and straightforward about the limitations of their network could be a reality, but I'm afraid unlimited access in the way you are suggesting is nothing more than a pipe dream. The limitations of currently available residential access technology in combination with non-fixed network operating costs in relation to bandwidth utilization make actual true unlimited access completely impossible. | |
| | | |
| | Would we be happier with... Unlimited with an asterisk?
Putting the small print on the front page, right under unlimited?
Educating the consumer so that they know NOTHING is unlimited?
Sanctions against these advertisements? | |
|  CatmandoCatmandoPremium
join:2002-10-22
Montgomery, IL | Unlimited Service The trend has been For cable companies to limited the bandwidth due to the structure of there network. They have been upgrading for the last six years to increase the bandwidth and duplex there network to prevent bottle necks in packet flow, but this can become very expensive on a coax structure. Now you have DSL, Fiber to the Node or Fiber to the home which have much lower bandwidth, but is very steady and reliable at longer distance if installed correctly. eventually fiber would be the future in broadband because of the inexpensive materials and the unlimited bandwidth that can be offered. Right now all ISP's are using the tecos fiber backbone even Comacast which has more than 10 transatlantic fiber cable from New York to Europe and California to Japan and Indonesia. | |
| | | Simple Answer To an ISP:
Unlimited = Always on Internet
Unlimited /= Unlimited bandwidth
To an End User:
Unlimited = Max out my connection speed 24/7
Thank AOL and their "Hour Metering" for the ISP definition.
Think about it. Would you buy the Internet plan that offers Unlimited Internet access per month or 750 hours per month? (hint: there are 744 hours in a 31 day month.)
--
Frankly, I no longer fear Hell anymore, because I know Satan will just put me in my old office and proceed to unleash an unending barrage of stupidity towards me. | |
| | |  Amusing
--
"True Patriotism is more closely linked with dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security...I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist abusive state power." -Ron Paul | |
| | | | Re: Amusing Watch a couple episodes of Heros in High Def using your "Unlimited" 5GB and see how far that gets you for the month. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| It will get worse It will get worse,the only thing I would think would help is if there was a nation wide movement to install high bandwidth pipelines all across the USA.It would take Billions $$$$.
Then again,supply and demand,just like gasoline,if you want a bigger "package you'll pay.The corporations think the American people are stupid and will pay for anything.
Maybe we need a economic collapse so we can rebuild it right.
--
HN9000w/Pro Plan,IPCOP Firewall,Linksys WRT54G,Lots Of PC's.3 dogs,2 cats,3 fish,one rabbit.one wife,two kids,no life.:) | |
| | | | Re: It will get worse - ISP Perspective I run an ISP so I'm going to provide a bit of perspective that I hope will help.
Cable is a shared media. When you get cable Internet access, you've got a cable segment with between several hundred and several thousand subscribers sharing a fixed bandwidth.
Just a handful of users can, theoretically, tie up almost all of this bandwidth if there were no limits in place.
The cable companies have dual incentives for wanting to limit your usage. First, the lower the average bandwidth usage, the more customers they can support per segment, so there are the obvious economic issues.
The second issue, is that they don't want you to access free video content that competes with content they own and hope to sell to you.
So with cable modems you have those dual issues.
DSL on the other hand, every DSL circuit only has that subscribers usage. Now all these circuits are concentrated at the DSLAM, the device that terminates the telco end of the DSL circuit; but since that's in the central office, it's just a matter of having adequate aggregate bandwidth available and generally in the central office you're going to have multiple fiber loops so usually isn't going to be an issue.
From an ISP's perspective; (Eskimo North in my case), we're using telco loops and DSLAM to provide service to our customers, and while the contracts allow them to throttle or deny access in the case of abuse; I've yet to see it happen with any of the telco's we work with.
However, now that telco's are getting into Fiber to the end user, what they refer to as FIOS, they're wanting to place limits, and guess what else they're delivering via FIOS? Television programming. I don't think it's any coincidence that now that they're entering the programming side of things they all of the sudden have issues with bandwidth.
As far as bandwidth goes, 98% of the fiber laid is still dark, and multiplexing technology existed back in 1995 that allowed 1 TB/s on a single fiber and no doubt that's improved in the last 13 years, so in terms of actual transport I don't think that is the issue.
Another issue is peering. "The Internet" isn't a uniform network, it's a network of networks. Who pays for the connections between the networks is always a point of contention and the big players basically expect the smaller players to be customers of the big players rather than peers. This provides them with a defacto monopoly of sorts.
The cable companies really don't care for Peer-to-Peer networks because they are geared towards delivering content and have much better capability for delivering downstream data than upstream, the latter costs them more and for reasons I don't understand is less efficient.
On the downstream side, they can get around 27mb/s per 6 Mhz channel, but on the upstream side only about 10mb/s. I don't understand the protocol well enough to know the technical reasons for that, but obviously they're not going to like things that cost them more to provide.
Some large carriers play that game a lot more than others.
With respect to hosting, a lot of ISPs offer very minimal hosting with their access product. We do offer a full hosting product including the ability to run net applications, databases, scripting, etc, but in part it's because we've been doing it forever and use open sourced software such as Linux and Apache to provide it so it really doesn't cost us a lot if we have to add a server; whereas many of the larger companies use commercial software and they've got to pay additional license fees every time they add a server and thus have a lot more financial incentive to concentrate as many customers as possible.
Lastly, one other thing is forcing more ISP's to place caps, and that has to do with averages. Our average expense is based upon the average users usage. And if one in a thousand uses a lot more it's no big deal. But if other ISP's cap services, they can provide service at a lower price because they're costs are low. Taking only the customers that cost them very little to provide service is what is known in the industry as "gravy skimming", and it's what most of the big providers do.
So what happens to the high volume one-in-one-thousand heavy users they kick off? Well, they come to those of us that don't have caps, and now are heavy users end up being 1-in-10 instead of 1-in-1000, that drives the cost up, forces us to raise the rates. So then what happens? Our low usage users go to these big gravy skimmers and makes our ratio of heavy-to-light users even higher.
That is what is driving this move towards metered or capped service. So when you got to the "cheapest" provider which is capping or metering usage; know that is screwing unlimited access for everyone. | |
|
| |
|
|
Everyone is right...including amigo_boy...
·
