republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
CenturyLink Confirms Usage Caps
150 GB for 1.5 Mbps Lines, 250 GB For Anything Faster
by Karl Bode Friday 15-Mar-2013 tags: business · bandwidth · consumers · caps · CenturyLink
CenturyLink has confirmed with Broadband Reports that there are usage caps in place for residential users. A thread in our forums contained more than a few users who were confused about the caps; some users saying they'd been warned and even disconnected -- while other heavy users had never been warned. Some are even being told when they call in that the company does not have any caps on their service.

"We received a rude awakening Thursday when we discovered our Internet access not working," said one user who was disconnected for consuming 250 GB for several consecutive months. "I called embarq Centrylink today and inquired about this data cap and they told me they absolutely don't have a data cap even on their slower speeds," says a different user.

I contacted CenturyLink, who clarified that there are hard caps in place for residential users, and that users who consume significant amounts of bandwidth should be getting warnings.

"CenturyLink’s Excessive Use Policy includes limits of 150 GB for residential high-speed Internet service plans with speeds of 1.5 Mbps and below and a 250 GB limit for service speeds above 1.5Mbps per month," CenturyLink's Mark Molzen informs me. "The limits do not apply to business-class lines, uploads or assess overage fees." The company says they do not charge overage fees "at this time."

Users are warned by a series of up to three pop up messages telling users they've exceeded their allowance and urging them to upgrade to faster residential or business plans. Those warnings didn't appear to help this visually impaired user in our forums, who had his line disconnected but says he couldn't read the warning pop ups. He also denies CenturyLink's charge that he was consuming in excess of 30 terabytes each month.

As we've explored previously, Qwest had a history of kicking users off of the network for "excessive usage," without bothering to clearly tell customers precisely how much usage would bring down the hammer. CenturyLink's clear caps are preferable to Qwest's old approach, but many users in the forums are complaining that the company does not offer users a consumption meter so they know how close to the cap they're getting.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Hazy Arc

join:2006-04-10
Greenwood, SC

Qwest Territory Only?

Do the caps apply to previous Qwest territory only? The link provided to the EUP is a Qwest subdomain, and so far, the only folks reporting notifications are in Qwest territory.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

Re: Qwest Territory Only?

I'll try and confirm that with them.

wherescomp

@qwest.net
Well, here are the days of the over regulated, under delivered internet. I wish there was some kind of competition...but it seems like the major corps have made that impossible, and have won the battle.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 edit
said by Hazy Arc:

Do the caps apply to previous Qwest territory only?

That would suck for us up here. Especially for us that have quite a few games on Steam (I have ~280GB of games).

..and Charter is going to pull the same crap once they officially take over.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33
So I confirmed with them that this is for all CenturyLink territories.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh Joy

Pay for speeds I don't even see, and caps fabulous. How does a VPN stream deal into this? Can anyone suggest a good useage meter?

Hazy Arc

join:2006-04-10
Greenwood, SC
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink

Re: Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh Joy

Therein lies my gripe with caps. I'm not entirely opposed to caps, provided they are fair. But I'll be damned if you're going to charge me and/or disconnect my service because of "excessive use" but not provide an accurate way for me to determine what my use even is.

buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US

Re: Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh Joy

said by Hazy Arc:

Therein lies my gripe with caps. I'm not entirely opposed to caps, provided they are fair. But I'll be damned if you're going to charge me and/or disconnect my service because of "excessive use" but not provide an accurate way for me to determine what my use even is.

Welcome to what we ATT customers have been B!tch!ng about for a over a year now. You have no data counter we have one that does not work same screwed up system. How I know ATTs does not work? I track my data usage with my Netgear router and I can say ATT has never shown the same amount as ( or even close to ) my routers monthly log.

Be glad at least you get 250 GB for anything over 1.5! with a 3.0 or 6.0 mbps line on ATT to reach 250 GB Id already be paying them an additional $20 in overage as ATT caps ALL there DSL packages to 150GB ( exception to Uverse).
patagriff

join:2013-03-15
Graham, WA
When I first started using torrents and began downloading far more than I had usually per month, Qwest didn't warn me at all. They just began dialing back my available bandwidth until my service was so slow it would take a month to download a movie.

My usage fell back to normal but my broadband connection speed has never returned to what it was originally.
--
patagriff
silbaco

join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh Joy

It is probably congestion and not related to torrent use.

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by Transmaster:

Pay for speeds I don't even see, and caps fabulous. How does a VPN stream deal into this? Can anyone suggest a good useage meter?

I have been evaluating NetWorx.

Daily usage report.

There are others; some free and some paid. I believe another highly regarded monitor is DU Meter, but it appears to be a paid monitor.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

IowaCowboy
Want to go back to Iowa
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..

Reasonable Accomodation

I wonder if the user could get reasonable accomodation to their policies due to the fact he is blind, especially if the screen reader software is causing the excessive bandwidth or receive the bandwidth warnings via a phone call.

I myself am disabled (Autism and a mild case of Cerebral Palsy) so I know accessibility barriers very well.
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Reasonable Accomodation

I doubt it, that would require them to A: care, and B: not be too lazy to implement/code that.

PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
said by IowaCowboy:

I wonder if the user could get reasonable accomodation to their policies due to the fact he is blind, especially if the screen reader software is causing the excessive bandwidth or receive the bandwidth warnings via a phone call.

I myself am disabled (Autism and a mild case of Cerebral Palsy) so I know accessibility barriers very well.

Yeah, I read that too...and don't buy it.

C'mon now, after all the guy calls himself "Datanabber"...does that give you at least pause to ponder?...

He claims that they are inaccurate in his data usage, but then of course he claims to have no idea either...okaaay.

My sister in law is blind, and I am the guy who set up and maintains her computer with JAWS, one of the other major screen reader programs for the blind.

Any warning that might be sent by an ISP would be just as accessible to her through JAWS, as it would be to me visually.

Also, screen reader software puts literally no "hit" on copnsumed bandwidth, so that dog won't hunt.
--
Deeds, not words
luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Reasonable Accomodation

There are other screen readers than JAWS. I use a combination of Window Eyes and Zoom Text and never noticed the popups. And the inaccuracy is in the sheer magnitude. On a 40mb connection it would be virtually impossible to download 1tb a day, and when I was notified on the 27th of Feb. I went and purchased my own router with a meter. It says I have used 76gb since then and I have not changed my usage at all. As to my username datanabber it was conferred on me in high school about 25 years ago and isn't relevant other than I use it occasionally as it is easy to remember and unique. I happen to be very good at finding data and facts so it was given to me by someone that called me the datanabber. At the time it had nothing to do with computers. I have since switched providers and find that my usages appears to be well below the cap that centurylink set in place. My major problem is the claim that I downloaded 3072000mb in one month.

lazy2login

@madisontelco.com

Re: Reasonable Accomodation

Something doesn't add right.

3,072,000Mb(small b) isn't 30Tera Bytes as the article suggests.
Data nabber, are those typos? If not it is more like 307.2GB, with the 8 bit/byte conv. Assuming a typo in the b/B, the number looks 10x short without another zero?
luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM

Re: Reasonable Accomodation

It was a typo... Just got the notation wrong...

yolo2die

join:2001-04-21
Mountain Iron, MN

Dumb

Yeah what happens if all you have available is a 1.5 line at your location? Suppose they make you buy into more data?
IanR

join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ

what extra charges?

What are the charges for overages and what is the cost (probably a frightening amount) for business?
patt2k

join:2009-01-16

Router

DD-WRT is a good data tracker

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

1 edit

Re: Router

said by patt2k:

DD-WRT is a good data tracker

Thanks pattr2K, I have a D-Link 655 router I have not looked to see is there if a useage meter lurking in there some place. I know I don't come close to the 250 gig limit but I do want to keep tabs on it.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Router

said by Transmaster:

said by patt2k:

DD-WRT is a good data tracker

Thanks pattr2K, I have a D-Link 655 router I have not looked to see is there if a useage meter lurking in there some place. I know I don't come close to the 250 gig limit but I do want to keep tabs on it.

I have a D-Link 655 on another site. I don't recall that it tracks data by the byte; I believe it tracks by packet. It is hardware Rev. A2, FW 1.35NA; other Firmware versions exist, and other hardware versions, as well, so YMMV.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
I agree, too. It also makes your router a bit more stable with several devices.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Next time be careful of what you wish for...

Everyone was upset that the large ISPs wanted to charge companies like Netflix for increasing the loads on their networks. So the went and found a way to keep them from charging for the increased use of their networks via net nuetrality.

The content providers won the net nuetrality fight but the consumer lost the war because the ISPs came up with a way to charge money for the increased usage.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

Caps have nothing to do with the ISP's costs, it's just a way to increase profits

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

said by Wilsdom:

Caps have nothing to do with the ISP's costs, it's just a way to increase profits

How do you increase profits by imposing a limit that 99.9% of customers don't reach, and generates a loss of revenue (disconnection) when hit?

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

said by espaeth:

How do you increase profits by imposing a limit that 99.9% of customers don't reach, and generates a loss of revenue (disconnection) when hit?

If 99% of customers don't reach them, then why do they need them.

Are you suggesting that if you have 1% of heavy users it will tank their network? That is absolutely pathetic.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
That is why the consumer should have the government intervene and breakup those monopolies and punish collusion agreements.
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
caps have always been about profits.

It is why the telcos are killing off their DSL and trying to push fixed LTE. As so far the fixed LTE solutions have horribly low caps that would be passed merely by downloading a game on Steam.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

Absolutely. When you force them into upgrading their networks on their dime that breaks their current business model their bean counters are going to find a way to bring things back into their model. Since Net Neutrality pretty much prohibits them from charging people like Netflix then they will find a way to charge someone. It looks like they found a way for someone to pay for it.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

I don't see how net neutrality hurts the ISPs. Netflix pays an ISP for its connections to the internet. There must be some ISP charging Netflix for the use of an OC-3072/STM-1024 connection or its equivalent. Users of Netflix pay an ISP for the use of an ADSL level of service or its equivalent. So the ISPs were getting paid. All kinds of video content could be stored on all kinds of servers that are accessible through the internet. Why would there need to be a special extra charge for Netflix users? What if universities and public schools had repositories of video courses that could be accessed? Would that require a special additional charge? Would that be charged to for profit universities and for profit K-12 schools?

The USA's telephone companies promised to build a 45Mbps symmetrical nationwide network in exchange for special rate hikes, tax deductions, accelerated depreciation, deregulation, tax credits, government backed loans, and taxpayer grants. They said it would handle two way video. What did they do with all that money? Where is the network we paid for?

I understand about the cable companies struggling with P2P. That prompted the simultaneous reset packet scandal. With the use of existing and new traffic management systems there is no more need for that crude behavior. So the congestion issue,P2P, has been significantly reduced. But the same traffic management that targets congestion in general catches Netflix users. If a lot of people are using Netflix and other World Wide Web video content through a hybrid fiber-coax node, the network is slow for all video users. The slowness is neutral. It effects everyone. It is similar to the way network congestion effected everyone when only text files were transmitted on the World Wide Web.

I do not think monthly, or daily caps are a bad idea in general. I absolutely understand the need for mobile/cellular caps and overage charges due to the extremely limited capabilities of the shared resource of wireless bandwidth. Explicit caps with third party verified usage meters for mobile and wired connections are a great tool to help subscribers understand their internet usage patterns. Previously you could be shut off from internet service for a vague issue of excessive usage. No one would tell you how much you had gone over. It is like getting a ticket at a truck weigh station for being overweight, but no indication of how much load you would need to remove to avoid getting a similar ticket next time. Explicit caps and overage fees or slow downs are just as necessary as explicit load limits for trucks with explicit fines or overweight usage fees. Both need third party verified measuring tools.

See 8 replies to this post

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by battleop:

The content providers won the net nuetrality fight but the consumer lost the war because the ISPs came up with a way to charge money for the increased usage.

The way AT&T and CenturyLink have implemented caps suggests that they are trying to steer users to more expensive services, not to mitigate "costs" of "increased usage".

In my case, all that AT&T accomplished was to steer me to a lower cost, higher speed competitive service; with no caps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

Neither company has Not for Profit status so their world profit is part of the calculation.

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

said by battleop:

Neither company has Not for Profit status so their world profit is part of the calculation.

If legacy ADSL (AT&T) and 1.5 M Internet are not profitable, either raise the price to a profitable level, or pull the damned plug on the services.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
TBusiness

join:2012-10-26
Toledo, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
Content owners have NOT one net neutrality. Recent news shows content companies such as Google, actually PAY ISPs to avoid being throttled. It's happened in two countries, two different ISPs/providers. Just by having the FCC pass some lame rules, does not protect them as they don't govern the Internet.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

Sources? What countries?
ozar
Premium
join:2008-04-13
USA
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..

horrible service

My own 10 Mbps connection with CenturyLink has been so lousy for the last few years that it would be surprising to find that it's even capable of downloading a full 250 GB in one month. What a total piece of crap that just keeps on getting worse... wonder what they'll come up with next?
--
oz

beck
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-29
On The Road
kudos:1

friend just called

yesterday to ask about dsl. 12Mbps and unlimited. asked again about caps and there aren't any. at least that's what she was told. I guess in a month or 2 she will find out.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

30 Terabytes?

Really?

With a username of "datanabber", I wonder if this is just another one of those folks who download for the purposes of maxing out their use, 24x7, and then act surprised and outraged when their ISP takes notice.

While I wouldn't claim that 250GB caps are absolutely necessary on wired service, they certainly can be a legitimate, means to thwart abuse and allow for lower price offerings.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Northeast PA

Re: 30 Terabytes?

30TB in one month would require a 100mbit/s connection. Well 97mbit/s and change to be precise. He says he has a 40/5 connection, so this amount of data usage is impossible even if he had the connection pegged in both directions 24/7.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Re: 30 Terabytes?

Clearly the number is inaccurate, as one should come to expect, both from some forum contributions, and software-based meters that trace their days to the butcher's-thumb-on-the-scale.

But we've seen here that there *are* members who intentionally "peg" their connections, which is not without consequence for all of us.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Northeast PA
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

Re: 30 Terabytes?

Oh, for sure. I know people who do it just to be spiteful. It's actually quite a shitty thing to do to BOTH ends of the connection, IMHO. I'm the guy who pauses Pandora if I step outside for five minutes, and I have an unlimited connection. No reason to waste a shared resource.
silbaco

join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: 30 Terabytes?

I don't bother pausing Pandora, but I do try to do my heavy downloads after midnight even though my ISP does not slow down during prime time.

toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
Reviews:
·OlyPen, Inc.
·CenturyLink

Impossible to get that high on their lines

Users like myself that have the advertised 1.5 Mbps DSL lines, can not get that speed, the max achievable is about 1.21 Mbps.

That speed is only achievable in the middle of the night, during day light hours we'd be lucky to get 0.2 Mbps.

Takes a long time to reach 150 GB of downloading.
raffoutroud

join:2010-03-31
Everett, WA

How quickly we forget

Why is this news Karl? You reported this already. »CenturyLink is Imposing Usage Caps

WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Charter

Nationalize All Communication Companies

Since none of the telecommunication companies or cable companies are involved with innovation, infrastructure improvement or "real" customer service ny more, the time for them to remain as for profit organizations is ended. Let the US government take them all over, create one national operation and provide service for all for free!
--
My perception is REALITY

gortch

@embarqhsd.net

Re: Nationalize All Communication Companies

Free? as in like "free" healthcare, "free" education, hell just have the government take over everything and make it "free".
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
What you suggest is too difficult to do constitutionally. Even in wartime it is difficult. What is needed is competition. A great way to do that is partnerships between electric power companies and local city/county governments to build FTTH systems. Another way would be to do what the Japanese and other nations have done, which is to compel local loop un-bundling of DSL POTS telephone lines. This would allow line sharing by competitors. The natural properties of hybrid fiber coax systems, from what I have read, do not allow the same type sharing so you cannot do any line sharing there. What you can do is have new state laws written concerning cable HSI performance. Either the state or local governments could impose fines for reliability or advertised performance failures, similar to the sanctions that used to exist for POTS providers. The government could help to ensure that build-out requirements are actually completed. In my state of Georgia AT&T would have to do what they said they would do when they got a statewide franchising law for wired pay video service. They would be required to extend the maximum Uverse capability to every single residential and business that uses AT&T telephone lines. Everyone would be able to get the top VDSL speed tier(24Mbps/3Mbps) and number of simultaneous different HD channels to watch(4). You got your deregulation, now build the network you said you would, OR pay steep fines.
TBusiness

join:2012-10-26
Toledo, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: Nationalize All Communication Companies

Line sharing is possible on cable. TWC does it. It works in a similar way as a resold DSL connection. Everything stays on the owner's last mile network until the CMTS and then moves out to the actual ISP's backbone/network. The customer would get an IP/DNS from the actual ISP and not the last mile owner.

TWC with Elink:

Elink- CMTS/TWC- Fiber- NODE- Coax - Customer

RR over TWC:

RR Network- CTMS/TWC - Fiber- Node, Coax- Customer.

As far as new state laws governing the Internet, who do you think is going to enforce that? The gov't has no control over the Internet as its an information service, and NOT a telcom service. You can write laws and rules until your face is blue but doesn't mean they'll be followed. Many state PUCs will take complaints for Internet problems, but nothing will be done. The FCC is tied up in court already for their "governing" of the Internet and they're as worthless as it comes for anything unless you're a company such as Clear Channel that needs them to exist to protect your company from pirate radio stations.

And by your claim of making the PRIVATE companies build out into areas that are not deemed profitable by any ISP and telco would death of that company. And do you realize the your state would be slapped so hard by the courts and run into bankruptcy faster than they could fine AT&T? AT&T built a network, it services the public and they followed the laws set forth by the state. Now, they can tell the state to deal with it, or be gone themselves. Or they can be very nice and just shut the U-Verse network off and go back to DSL and regular POTS.

And as far as the Feds operating a company; we all know and seen what they have done to the USPO and what has happened to Amtrak. Both money pits and Amtrak should be sold off to Virgin and become a real company.
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..

Re: Nationalize All Communication Companies

Interesting line sharing system. I had read that in order for all the line and signal quality features built into DOCSIS 3.0 to work, that there had to be only one ISP monitoring and adjusting amplifiers, signal generators, and other hardware. The D3 standard was supposed to lead to a more automated physical plant health monitoring system, that could apply corrections or provide detailed trouble warnings. I guess TWC is still responsible for the coaxial physical plant, but the other two are leasing on it.

As far as laws and regulations go they can be changed, as long as they are constitutional. Remember AT&T and the Baby Bells promised they were going to build an advanced network in exchange for expensive favors from the general public in the form of tax and regulatory policy changes. They failed to do so. The citizens can decide to change that situation by voting in representatives who will work to change laws, tax policies, and regulations.

The federal government does not need to attempt to operate an nationwide ISP to solve the problems of monopoly or duopoly, the states have that authority already. Some states have policies that would allow counties or cities to build the networks. Some states actually put the responsibility for such decisions down to the local level, the same as water, sewage, gas, electricity, public transport, parks, museums, fire departments, law enforcement, hospitals, and public schools. If the voters decide that they need a service the private sector will not provide at what they deem to be a reasonable cost, they can tax themselves to provide that service. If the project fails, then it is no different than a space mission that fails. The people conducted an experiment and found it did not work. They can try again with the knowledge of experience or not try again. There are several municipal or public utility fiber optic networks that are used as ISPs for the general public. Some have been successful in their mission to provide a needed public utility at a reasonable cost. Some have not been successful. We should allow other local governments and their citizens to look at the history of these projects and decide for themselves if they wish to try them.

The USPS would be much better off financially if it did not have to follow a retirement funding policy that no other entity, public or private, is required to follow. Good intentions to protect retirement funds have created problems with operating funds. The retirement policy could be modified by the US Congress. Even the postal workers unions admit the retirement funding policy is too strict and they would agree to changes to the requirement.

Amtrak books are cooked to make the Northeast Corridor look good and the long distance trains look bad. There are a lot of capital improvements in the Northeast Corridor that are hidden under "maintenance" when it is convenient and maintenance costs that are hidden under "capital improvements" when that is more advantageous. There is more to this, but I will get admonished by the moderator for going off topic for too long, so I will stop here.
TBusiness

join:2012-10-26
Toledo, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: Nationalize All Communication Companies

TWC has had the line sharing system since the TW/AOL merger. TWC has several options across its network as a whole for HSI networks. There are several wholesale HSI companies that will give you access to become your own cable HSI provider. Comcast also does this with ELink in maybe 5 markets. D3 didn't stop this, except allows it to go on as it has for years. But yes, TWC owns and operates the actual network and then the ISPs "cross-connect" into the actual network at the peering points/data centers in each state/market.

AT&T also built their advanced network. Anyone was and able to obtain fiber Internet connections and still can today. They didn't say they would be affordable for everyone to purchase one. And now they have U-Verse. So as far as a court would see it; their promises were met. The same as VZ/GTE in PA. Which is why people who think munis are the great thing for FTTH aren't really looking hard for fiber access as Comcast, and TWC and every other MSO will sell you GigE ad Fiber connections today in all markets. You don't need a local gov't doing that and looking through your data or raising taxes after the project implodes. Which is why Muni companies are never a success. They actually are the opposite. Especially with raising content prices and ongoing costs. They're never able to fully make any money, as they charge "break even" or below what they pay. Which is why federal laws are pending to stop them.

tstolze
Premium
join:2003-08-08
O Fallon, MO
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Charter
·CenturyLink

Why I left

I have a choice of Centurylink or Charter...I use 90-130 gigs/month....When Centurlink announced they were going to a capped system about 16 months back, I went back to Charter...Caps either way but a faster connection 10/768 or 30/4....I know enforcement is hit and miss, but with everything else being equal, I'll enjoy my faster uploads/downloads....
--
Ofallon, Mo Weather
St. Peters, Mo Weather
BigVe

join:2005-07-15
Gulliver, MI

Don't matter to me...

Even if cap is 50GB it is very highly unlikely i even come close.I think ~40GB traffic is the most i have ever had in any given month

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Don't matter to me...

said by BigVe:

Even if cap is 50GB it is very highly unlikely i even come close.I think ~40GB traffic is the most i have ever had in any given month

What don't you do?

My last days with AT&T.

April was a short month because I switched to Sonic.net in the first week and a half.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

motivations

you have to question the motivations of these caps and network changes of six strikes to see the bigger picture here-- making more money and offering very little in return. this will drive consumers away from ALL service providers simultaneously.

then they can take their pitiful network and shove it!
BigVe

join:2005-07-15
Gulliver, MI

Re: motivations

Unfortunately their 'pitiful' network is the Only Broadband i have

asdf

@bresnan.net

Old caps

Qwest used to have 500GB caps on a 7meg DSL line, when you get 4 people going to college at the same time for something technical this goes really fast. (Note that is about a quater of what the line can provide in the 7mbps down)

kilrathi

join:2005-04-22
Rockaway Park, NY

what a joke

250 GB cap on anything faster? LOL what a joke, industry advanced enough that on fastest packages u need like 350 gb cap no less. kthx.
sreilly24590
Premium
join:2002-10-27
Scottsville, VA
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..

Better than what I had before

Well I spent a fortune on satellite internet for 10 years before Centurylink ran fiber for our new DSL service. The most they expected on this rural country service was maybe 50 people so I'm happy they spent the money on us. I'm at 8Mbs service with a cap of 250GBs a month. Hughesnet, the only other option other then dial up was 450 MB daily at a much higher cost.

I spoke with a rep this afternoon and he has no access to tell me what I've consumed and told me there were no caps. I advised him otherwise. The Zytel modem has no data usage meter that I can see and my bill shows no usage amount. I would think the FCC would challenge any charge of over usage unless there was proper metering, accessible by the customer as well, before any action could be taken. At least that's how it should be. Of course I also had Direct TV tell me I agreed to an extension of my contract when I know full well I didn't. They didn't have to prove anything.

As is, I'm concerned that I can't track my network full usage, 4 desktops, one laptop, two connected Blue Ray players, and a Sony TV. I did go into my Netflix account and set the video qualities lower than HD but then again, maybe I didn't have to if I knew what I was actually consuming. Although I have NetWorx set up to track the entire network, I don't see the BR players or TV. Try to do the right thing and can't seem to find a way to.

Not knocking Centurylink as it's the best thing I have available and a far better bargain than satellite ever was, faster, more bandwidth, way faster latency and better service. Guess it really depends on what you have to choose from and what you do with your service. I do realize that caps are necessary due to the few that will and do hog as much as they can.

Wednesday, 22-May 02:40:10 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.