Wave Broadband Sloppily Employing Caps Coming soon: 10, 100, & 300GB monthly caps with $5/10GB overages Friday Jan 23 2009 16:15 EDT Tipped by drew A few weeks ago, customers of Washington, Oregon and California cable operator Wave Broadband (see our user reviews) let us know that the company had quietly begun implementing a cap system. Shortly after the terms of service were changed, customers began to notice that their connections were starting to get throttled to 1.5Mbps or slower should they consume more than 3GB per day (combined upload/download). Some users say their 10Mbps connections were suddenly as slow as 300kbps once they'd exceeded the limit. WaveBroadband user drew writes in to note that while the Wave website makes ample mention of the caps, the company is sending mixed messages in terms of informing customers about specific network limitations. The company's various service plans are listed here, though so far they only outline the 18Mbps/2Mbps service ($74.95 or $64.95 if bundled with TV) as having a 300GB cap. Caps on slower tiers exist, but aren't being advertised (yet). Despite no reference on the website, customers are being told that the company's 10Mbps tier now comes with a 100GB per month cap, and their 6MBps tier now comes with a 50GB per month cap. The fine print of the product page does acknowledge that "each tier of High Speed Internet Service includes an allotment of bandwidth consumption that you may use during each calendar month at no additional charge," going on to note that "additional bandwidth consumed beyond that allotment will be billed at $5/per 10 GB consumed." Wave hasn't responded to our request for comment, but judging from employee forum posts, it looks like they implemented a 3GB daily cap to handle network strain after growing faster than they expected. They've since decided to move to a cap and overage system, but like NY-based DSL provider Frontier (and their 5GB cap snafu), didn't quite have all their ducks in a row before making references to the caps on their website. The result is a sloppy mess where consumers aren't clearly informed of the limitations of the product they're paying for. While the need for caps and overages is a contentious issue, must people agree that the least ISPs can do is be very clear about what they're doing. Customers say they'd vote with their wallet -- if they had other options. "I've got exactly one other option to Wave: Qwest DSL," says drew . "I'm pretty much in the heart of the population center of Port Orchard (Washington State) and cannot get provisioned for anything more than 1.5Mbps from them." Interestingly, users note that changing the MAC address on their router will reset the daily cap that's still currently being used in some markets. It looks like the daily caps in place in some markets will be eliminated when Wave begins officially capping users and charging overages, which some customers are being told will begin more officially in April. |
SlickEnW Premium Member join:2003-01-21 Seattle, WA |
SlickEnW
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 4:01 pm
YikesWow. They don't deserve the business if they are pulling speeds based solely on their inability to plan a network. That's just weak. | |
| | |
iansltx_
Anon
2009-Jan-23 4:39 pm
Re: YikesFiber circuits are expensive, not particularly usage based and take awhile to trun up. Seriously though, unless you're using online backup (or downloading tons of torrents) you're not going to use 300GB per month, more than Comcast, ATT, TWC, ProLog, etc.
Yes, 50GB is a bit low, but what does the 6 Mbit plan cost? I'd say 100 GB would be reasonable for such a tier.
As to the FiOS user, Verizon runs a backbone network, and has tons of last mile capacity.TONS I tell you. So yes, they can afford to give you 15 Mbps symmetric 24/7 if you're on GPON and not affect anyone else. Wave, with DOCSIS 1.1, doesn't have that luxury. Want them to upgrade? Build your own ISP. At least they don't deprioritize your traffic, they just lower your speed.
About the idea that your cap should be your maximum data amount at your particular speed, I don't want a 768k cable connection. Or a 1.5 Mbit cable connection for that matter. If I wanted that I'd get a fractional or full T1. If you want that type of connectivity (which DOCSIS, even 3, can't handle well) get fiber or dedicated copper (T1/3).
Again, 50 cents per gig isn't bad. Better than being cut off for a year. No, Wave isn't worse than Comcast...if I had the choice between their new capped plans and what Comcast has in my area I'd switch in a heartbeat. | |
| | | knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN |
Re: YikesHow about $9.99 a month for unlimited usage? No caps, just the best effort to make sure everyone gets an equal share of bandwidth available? How is it that no other company is able to pull off this technical feat? | |
| | | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
Re: YikesHow about we make it "free" and turn it over to the government? | |
| | | | | knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN |
Re: Yikessaid by jester121:How about we make it "free" and turn it over to the government? No one values anything for free unfortunately. It easily could if managed properly, but we know how well any government has on a track record for "managing" anything. | |
|
| | |
Sarthax to iansltx_
Anon
2009-Jan-23 5:54 pm
to iansltx_
At the 18/2 plan you pay $75 for 300GB or $.25 per GB At the 10/1 plan you pay $55 for 100GB or $.55 per GB At the 6/1 plan you pay $45 for 50GB or $.90 per GB
Reasonable would be
At the 18/2 plan you pay $75 for 300GB or $.25 per GB At the 10/1 plan you pay $55 for 200GB or $.27 per GB At the 6/1 plan you pay $45 for 100GB or $.45 per GB | |
| | | | |
Re: YikesAgreed, though the 10/1 plan could get away with 150 GB and still be a happy medium between the two options. | |
|
| |
to SlickEnW
said by SlickEnW:Wow. They don't deserve the business if they are pulling speeds based solely on their inability to plan a network. That's just weak. yep. ...to handle network strain after growing faster than they expected.translation: added customers faster than they increased capacity. apparently the ISP business model in the U.S. is not to increase capacity when their customer base grows, but to throttle and cap. | |
| | | dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
dynodb
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 6:43 pm
Re: YikesOne doesn't need to increase the number of subscribers to run into bandwidth issues. Bandwidth consumed per subscriber has steady increased, and by quite a bit.
The same infrastructure that might've been fine 9 months ago could very well be congested now without adding a single customer. | |
| | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
to nasadude
Hey, works for Brian Roberts. | |
|
|
iansltx_
Anon
2009-Jan-23 4:01 pm
reasonable300 GB is more than Comcast's cap, and 18/2 is decent speed. Below that, caps are rather meh, but the overage prices, 50 cents per GB, are better than a buck per gig, and better than being cut off. Wonder iif business plans are uncapped... | |
| | joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday join:2001-09-07 Sudbury, MA 552.8 23.8
|
Re: reasonablesaid by iansltx_ :
300 GB is more than Comcast's cap, and 18/2 is decent speed. Below that, caps are rather meh, but the overage prices, 50 cents per GB, are better than a buck per gig, and better than being cut off. Wonder iif business plans are uncapped... I am at the end of third month of self-metering, and run just around 40GB. I'd be curious what people are doing who routinely break though 100. | |
| | | |
Re: reasonableSharing Family videos. Dvd camcorders / HD camcorders for instance are no small format is one legitimate usage. Also, another is beta testing software. 1 Distro of Fedora Core 9 dvd = 3.4GB. That in itself would set you over the 3GB a day cap!! So on so forth. | |
| | | | 1 edit |
Re: reasonableFor me it's working from home, watching live HD streaming and online backup.
I would get a business account but they're capped at 60GB instead of 100GB like my residential account. | |
| | | | | joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday join:2001-09-07 Sudbury, MA |
Re: reasonableOk, I get it now. The HD streaming is far more than the few low-res videos I've downloaded, and I understand the need for frequent Linux Distros. Thanks for the note. | |
|
|
ryanwa
Member
2009-Jan-23 4:05 pm
waveIf you have Wave, get rid of them. Crap business and a horrible business model. They're making Comcast look like a godsend. | |
| drewRadiant Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Port Orchard, WA |
drew
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 4:05 pm
Thanks for the article Karl.Glad to see this is getting some press.
I'm not a very popular person regarding this subject as I still haven't found (IMO) a reasonable, non-illegal use for 300GB/mo. That's 50GB higher than Comcast's caps too.
The issue, as an anonymous user on the Wave forum points out, is with the slower tiers. I'm at the 6mbps/1mbps plan, which comes with a 50GB/mo. cap. That's tiny. | |
| | |
Sarthax
Anon
2009-Jan-23 4:43 pm
Re: Thanks for the article Karl.Amen Drew.
a 50 GB a month cap would equal out to a 24/7 connection running at .15mbps for 30 days. Not much of a deal for 45 bucks. You would honestly be better off with a 1.5mbps uncapped line if you download offline content and don't need it right away. It's a shame 1.5mbps isn't good enough for quality streaming however. | |
| | | drewRadiant Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Port Orchard, WA |
drew
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 4:46 pm
Re: Thanks for the article Karl.Well, personally, I'd rather manage BW usage and be able to burst download files or stream a movie than be waiting forever and a day for something to download even if it wasn't capped.
But, my internet is paid for by my company as I am on-call pretty much 24x7x365 for our eCommerce business, so I might just have to get upgraded to the 10mb package... I think 100GB is probably doable, but I'd much prefer the 18/2 :P | |
| | | | |
Re: Thanks for the article Karl.Personally, I'd rather have uncapped speeds and different tiers depending on how much data is consumed. Sure, it'd lead to slowdoowns during peak times, but then the people who want fast connections download at other times, and maybe the providere subsidizes non-peak GBs.
At any rate, I'm not a fan of a low-BW (anything below 5 Mbps down and 1 up, preferably 20/20) "all you can eat" connection as opposed to a high-power capped connection with reasonable overages (50 cents per gig is *shrugs* reasonable in light of what some other providers are trying to pull) and a slightly smaller "cap" relative to the price of an uncapped line that would take 24x7 downloading to pull the same thing. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to drew
said by drew:Glad to see this is getting some press. I'm not a very popular person regarding this subject as I still haven't found (IMO) a reasonable, non-illegal use for 300GB/mo. That's 50GB higher than Comcast's caps too. The issue, as an anonymous user on the Wave forum points out, is with the slower tiers. I'm at the 6mbps/1mbps plan, which comes with a 50GB/mo. cap. That's tiny. if you need more bandwidth then move to a higher tier. Which I think is the whole point of what they are doing. | |
| | | drewRadiant Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Port Orchard, WA |
drew
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 8:25 pm
Re: Thanks for the article Karl.The caps on the lower tiers are disproportionate to the cap on the highest tier.
At 6mbps, going through 50GB with 100% legitimate and non-excessive use is pretty easy... A 154 minute HD movie from netflix (at the highest bit rate) is ~4.19GB. At 3800kbps, that's only 2/3rds of the provisioned rate and only for a short amount of time. 10 movies over the course of 30 days combined with actual http traffic... that's really not much at all. | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to drew
In my opinion, they need to either sell broadband in one of two ways:
1) Speed tiers, no consumption limits.
2) Consumption, fastest network provisioned speeds capable.
To somehow sell their tiers multi-limited is just a little strange. They're trying to say that a 6mb speed user should only be able to download 50 meg, while an 18mb user should be able to download 300 meg.
Maybe a third:
3) No matter the tier: the same cap for all users. 250/300 sounds reasonable with overage options.
NO MATTER HOW they decide to sell it, the overage charges should NEVER exceed the original tier/sold price.
Example: If the 6 meg service comes with 50gb transfer, and SAY it's sold at $39.99 per month, that's $1.25 per gig. The cost for extra service should NEVER exceed that mark. Further, it should never exceed, in my opinion, 50% of the original cost as part of the monthly fee goes to maintaining the infrustructure, and not necessarily moving the data. | |
|
TomClancyFreedom Isn't Free join:2003-04-23 ... |
Wow!Wow, somebody worse than Comcast? Hell is freezing over... | |
| | DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX |
Re: Wow!Ya I heard somewhere that the Devil went out to but a coat lol | |
| | |
to TomClancy
said by TomClancy:Wow, somebody worse than Comcast? Hell is freezing over... I've been ice skating in Hell for years. My ISP charges me $54 a month for 15/2 service- and my cap is 80 gigs. I would KILL to have Comcast's cap. | |
| | | |
Re: Wow!Rather unfair comparison, but most wireless internet providers consider 30GB to be a kingly amount, and talk of the woes of 70+ GB per month customers. Then again, different tech, different market, but the grass is always greener...
...and if you'd kill for Comcast's cap, imagine what the peeps in Beaumont would do for it...it's TWC 40 GB max on one side and MAYBE 150 GB (more likely 80GB) max on AT&T on the other. | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to TomClancy
said by TomClancy:Wow, somebody worse than Comcast? Hell is freezing over... Embarq, AT&T, and Time Warner are all talking about, and testing, 5gig caps.. there are FAR worse that Comcast. So far, comcast has the best system/plan in place, even over wave. Comcast is still 250 no matter what speed you have.. | |
| | | |
Re: Wow!said by fiberguy2:said by TomClancy:Wow, somebody worse than Comcast? Hell is freezing over... Embarq, AT&T, and Time Warner are all talking about, and testing, 5gig caps.. there are FAR worse that Comcast. So far, comcast has the best system/plan in place, even over wave. Comcast is still 250 no matter what speed you have.. I guess Embarq, AT&T, and Time Warner are gonna get a big surprise when people don't want their ridiculous service and go back to dial up. Let's see how many takers they get for 5 GB a month service. People can do that much on a cell phone for God's sake. | |
| | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Wow!You're correct about that's what you get with a cellular connection. HOWEVER (rather than a "butt") there are many people out there that still, to this day, do not use 5gb of data in a month so they won't know the difference.
There is something that will come to light soon IF these guys deploy 5gb caps. These networks know what users are using per month and most likely user on the average user. HOWEVER, if they chose 5gb as "the" 95% user base and it turns that out the a noticeably large group of consumers see consistent overage charges, they are opening themselves up to HUGE implications by regulators and law makers.
Its funny that many people, here, are all so quick to run to these mass exodus scenarios and how dial up will be resurrected from the dead, which won't happen when they compare the 'average user' to what they themselves would use/do/think, etc.
To say people would run back to dial-up is silly anyway. I, for one, even under a 5gb cap, would most certainly not run back to dial up at any cost. If I was already pushing 5gb on broadband, I'm going to find it very hard to push 5gb on dial up at any price and the internet would be worthless.
The proof is in the puddin' and will be seen only if and or when these ridiculous caps are placed in service. Its pretty clear that Obama, who is rather tech savvy (more than others at least) is not going to have a broadband plan out there with the intention to "move this nation forward" and allow such restrictions to be initiated.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the user base here is quick to cry foul when I certainly don't think, the way things are heading, any of this will ever come to light, so for the record, this ----> :| ----- is my worried look. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Wow!said by fiberguy2:You're correct about that's what you get with a cellular connection. HOWEVER (rather than a "butt") there are many people out there that still, to this day, do not use 5gb of data in a month so they won't know the difference. There is something that will come to light soon IF these guys deploy 5gb caps. These networks know what users are using per month and most likely user on the average user. HOWEVER, if they chose 5gb as "the" 95% user base and it turns that out the a noticeably large group of consumers see consistent overage charges, they are opening themselves up to HUGE implications by regulators and law makers. Its funny that many people, here, are all so quick to run to these mass exodus scenarios and how dial up will be resurrected from the dead, which won't happen when they compare the 'average user' to what they themselves would use/do/think, etc. To say people would run back to dial-up is silly anyway. I, for one, even under a 5gb cap, would most certainly not run back to dial up at any cost. If I was already pushing 5gb on broadband, I'm going to find it very hard to push 5gb on dial up at any price and the internet would be worthless. The proof is in the puddin' and will be seen only if and or when these ridiculous caps are placed in service. Its pretty clear that Obama, who is rather tech savvy (more than others at least) is not going to have a broadband plan out there with the intention to "move this nation forward" and allow such restrictions to be initiated. Basically, what I'm saying is that the user base here is quick to cry foul when I certainly don't think, the way things are heading, any of this will ever come to light, so for the record, this ----> :| ----- is my worried look. I like your "worried look"... that cracked me up... LOL Do you really think most users stay under 5 GB's a month? With the proliferation of Flash based sites, just basic surfing and email will rack up more than 5 GB's a month. And if Grandma is just doing email, I don't think she is going to be paying the big bucks for a fast connection. If people are aware of this, and are paying higher prices for faster connections- then suddenly getting zapped with onerous overage charges- I think they will go back to dial up. At least it's not metered. At the very least they would switch to DSL if it were available to them. But you're probably right- it's just a bunch of hollow threats. Nobody in their right mind would sign up for it. And I really hope you're right about Obama wanting to push the country forward with broadband and other technology. It's a shame. We used to lead the world in technology. Now we just consume what everyone else invents. And we have a long way to go just to catch up with some third world countries when it comes to broadband. In Japan you can get a 100 Mbps symmetrical connection, with a 1 TB cap- for around $40 a month. And I hear if you go over the cap- they really don't do anything to you. My ISP will TOS you for it. Internet TV and movie streaming is just beginning to become a viable option to compete with cable and satellite- and this is exactly why these draconian caps are being considered. Cable and satellite don't want the competition... | |
| | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Wow!You bring up a valid point about video competition.. and I have two responses to that:
1) Not many people are going to sit in front of the computer to watch video.. and as many have said here, Video OnDemand is a joke of a technology, yet the same group wants video on the net.. same thing really. Either way, there needs to be some validity to the service for it to become or remain a viable choice/option.
or
2) I have concerns about these "video competition" choices on the net. With providers like cable, satellite, and phone, there is major and substantial investment into the networks, unlike these "net providers"... IF these net providers were to make a difference or dent into the business, I'd be VERY worried for one reasons.. that is, what's backing them? I don't want the major, strong players harmed by the fly-by-night providers out there. The net providers can come and go as fast as the next subway train in NYC. Even Blockbuster video is not a "major player" in the market and could fold at any time.
I'm for people making a business in the market place, but when it comes to something on this scale, the players that put up the investment and put out a valid effort need to be afforded some protections from fly by night money makers.
Those that are out for the money, and not the consumer remind me of something that is plaguing us now.. Wall St. anyone? The players in the Wall St. mess were in it for the money and didn't give a rats ass about the longevity of what they were doing. This kinda activity hurt Americans in a major way.
While people sit here and cry for "choice" and "change" and these low fare options, they OFTEN forget the impact that some of these "choices" can have on you in the long run.
I don't expect 90% of the people on this site to understand what I'm saying, agree with it, or even accept it.. and that's fine.. that 80% are usually going to be the ones that only think about themselves and will go for anything they want with out owning consequences and dismiss ANYTHING that even remotely threatens threatens their dream.
All I can say is this.. be careful what you ask for.. give it some thought, and don't be too soon to dismiss people that have a different view. .. when it comes to the way things work in the business world, many here don't even care to understand it.. they just want want want..
However, to YOUR direct point.. I also do agree that it's a shame we don't lead the world.. we never really did "lead the world in technology" but we were a good player.. and that has slipped big time. Over the next 4 years, I believe we're going to see a big time turn around in the way we think about innovation... at least I hope we will. | |
|
| MadnessLike a flea circus at a dog show join:2000-01-05 Lynn, MA ·DSL EXTREME
|
to TomClancy
said by TomClancy:Wow, somebody worse than Comcast? Hell is freezing over... Did hear through the grapevine that Satan placed a huge order for snow shovels & rock salt (he's got NINE levels to tend to, y'know! ). | |
|
|
Sucks for those who don't have FIOS!Hey, I admit it, I've used over 1TB/month, several times. Of course, when you have a 15/15 connection for $50.00/month, that's a pretty good deal. So far, this month, I've used a combined 940GB (up and down), and nary a whisper from my ISP. What am I downloading, well, linux iso's of course!
But, looking at them, if they HAVE a 100GB cap/month, then how in the hell can they justify a 3GB/DAY Cap? I mean, at 30 days, you could only USE 90GB. What is the extra 10GB for, free 'profits'.
If they can't AFFORD to PROVIDE those speeds, then they shouldn't SELL those speeds. Your 'cap' should always be the max speed you can go 7x24x30.
Why don't they just sell 1MB/sec, for $75.00/month. That would allow them to make a profit, and it sure as hell wouldn't affect grandma who checks e-mail every month. | |
| | ••••• | mleland Premium Member join:2002-12-17 Westwood, CA |
mleland
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 4:30 pm
Wave doesn't just suck at caps... try tv too....You should go to their website and use zip code 95947 to check for what service is available. It used to be Charter and now I believe the cable system is under 50 channels total with no digital anything for 40$ a month. Admittedly this is a very small cable head end and local area but every time the system is sold we are told there will be digital service soon.... yeah right....
Thank God my parents can choose between Dtv and Dish instead! | |
| | 1 edit |
Re: Wave doesn't just suck at caps... try tv too....and if you have HSI you should have digital. Someone wants to collect the money from HSI without deploying the digital TV. That or they don't want to mess with signing new agreements for new channels and have people bitch about the rates going up.
Edit Add: Sounds like Adelphia Central Ohio. Before they decided to file for Chap. 13. Their system was only digital and analog TV. no digital. They only kept saying "it's coming soon" and that's it. when they announced the big issues all of a sudden HSI came out. It's like it was there but just didnt feel like doing it. Everything was in place. They were just lazy and didnt care. | |
|
ztmikeMark for moderation Premium Member join:2001-08-02 La Porte, IN |
ztmike
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 4:45 pm
LOLI love the part where it says, "Includes 300GB of data transfers per month at no additional charge" Their TO KIND! LoL.. | |
| | ••• | |
slippery slope...if you keep paying companies whom provide lousy terms of service, you get exactly what you deserve... comcast included.. the only way to get what you want is to vote with your money! | |
| RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2009-Jan-23 5:12 pm
Caps should be proportional to SpeedIf you want to impose a cap, it should be based set based on full speed usage time. In the case of that 18Mbs tier they set it at 300GB. This means that the 10Mbs tier should be capped at 166GB and the 6Mbs one at 100GB. These caps provide the SAME usage time per tier before going over. The question of applying the same overage charges for all 3 tiers is a separate issue that can be argued either way. | |
| badtrip Premium Member join:2004-03-20
1 recommendation |
badtrip
Premium Member
2009-Jan-23 5:49 pm
I love the way these companies shift the blameto their customers. Comcast: "It's not our fault our network slows down when our customers download. It's our customer's fault for downloading! If you don't like the slowdown and/or caps, go talk to your neighbors, they're the ones downloading, not us!" Wave: "Hey if customers didn't sign up for service so much, then we wouldn't have to implement these tiny caps and throttling measures. If you don't like these caps and throttles, go talk to your neighbors they're the ones signing up for service, not us!" | |
| | |
Re: I love the way these companies shift the blameIf you work the math, DOCSIS, especially 1.1 (what Wave uses AfAIK) can't handle a ton of traffic per node. You either split nodes or you implement caps to keep torrenters (and backup-ers) from near-monopolizing the node. Yes, it's not great when you're selling 18 Mbps packages on a 38 Mbps node...but when HD video comes to the fore, you gotta realize that some of these cable outfits have to expand infrastructure, and for that matter buy bandwidth. and both of thee things cost money. Not 50 cents per gig anywhere where cable is, but it's a good way to subsidize network upgrades so even the heavy users get decent network performance day in and day out. I'd venture to say that Wave probably spends $30ish per megabit of connectivity, maybe a little more, so 10 cents per downstream gig, not counting infrastructure costs. When you get heavy users on the network, the infrastructure gets strained, and they start becoming unprofitable. This is a natural, albeit somewhat painful (especially on lower tiers) market correction for this. | |
|
hayabusa3303Over 200 mph Premium Member join:2005-06-29 Florence, SC |
time to vote with your moneytell them to goto hell. and boot them. | |
| | |
Re: time to vote with your money...and have fun downloading your 300 GB over a 1.5 Mbit (more like 1.3) Qwest connection . Granted, the Qwest line is only $40 "naked" but still... | |
| | | |
moon1234
Anon
2009-Jan-23 11:24 pm
Re: time to vote with your moneyCharter is looking better and better all the time. No Caps. Decent performance (when it works), good speed tiers, price is right.
Did I mention NO CAPS.
Charter is starting to look like the bright spot next to Verizon.
Netflix is going to be THE service in the next few years and these piddly caps are aimed squarely at killing this service.
I hope the new administration bans these types of caps. At these prices it is cheaper to PURCHASE a DVD than it is to download it legally. Walmart sells DVDs for $3 now. At some of these monthly rates with caps the cost is more. Up to double the cost if overages come in to play.
CAPS are WRONG. The stifle innovation. A network can be properly managed so everyone gets decent bandwidth without CAPS. Anyone heard of weighted fair queing or QOS policies. These types of management are the proper way to manage even a congested network. | |
|
|
Capacity....Spoke with a co-worker who shares the same commute as I do, turns out Wave has doubled in subscribers since I last worked there (14 months ago), yet the call center hasn't. They still have the same amount of CSR/TSR's working for them & almost none of them are people I know. High turnover rate, which I guess is odd given that none of them are temp workers (yet).
They took over many new areas, yet didn't anything to compensate. So having to implement daily caps doesn't surprise me. They say its temporary, but given the past screw ups I've experienced while working for them, this could go on for 6-8 months.
Both the Starstream & RCN takeovers were handled so poorly. Even though many of the WaveBB Suits came from Comcast, they clearly need a bit more experience. At the time I left the company, I felt they were struggling. Kirkland missed all goals for profit sharing and they don't even audit their orders (in case CSRs screw up). Looks like the best way to catch up, now that the economy is having problems, is to milk its data customers. | |
| |
Legit reasons to use alot of bandwidth?It's funny but to the novice computer user these caps don't seem unreasonable. I have read multiple posts where people have monitored their own bandwidth and only used 40 or 50 gb in a month.
They must not use their computer for much.
As a private home computer user I use considerable amounts of bandwidth - for legal purposes. One application alone - a streaming audio feed that is sent outbound to a server farm consumes over a gb a day by itself. Several online games I like to play also apparently use alot of bandwidth especially when you are hosting the game on your server (like Unreal Tournament). Throw in a few movies online, some legal music downloads, web surfing and chat and I can easily hit 50 gb with all legit purposes.
But what would happen if say I had a wife and two kids and at the very least one more computer. Their usage also then becomes a factor and raises that overall usage up even more.
Personally if all I used the internet for was surfing web pages and checking e-mail I would not need the 16/2 service I have now. If the throttle it that speed becomes useless because it won't be good for a single thing other than surfing the web. I would drop the package down to 1.5 and my web pages will load just as fast. Instead of paying to obtain a movie online I'll just go up the street to Blockbuster and fetch it.
That's the only way to stop this capping trend - drop your package. If each time these companies walk into a market and started capping and charging overages the users called in mass numbers and requested the slowest package that is offered these companies would lose their a$$. They want to sell huge fast packages because it makes them money and they have invested in the infrastructure for it. If the users stop spending their money for all but the most basic of packages these companies would give up these caps quickly or lose large amounts of income.
It's simple - SPEAK WITH YOUR WALLET AND DO IT LOUDLY. These caps are nothing more than another way to leech more money from the consumers.
Some many years ago cellular service was like this. You could generally purchase only a few plans and they only allotted a certain amount of usage. If you went over the charges could be enormous. Nowdays most companies offer an unlimited plan - calls, text, etc are all one price and you're done. Then why are the ISP's fading the other direction? Because they hoped for net neutrality laws to generate more money for them and failed. They tried selling package speeds that they can't adequately support.
SPEAK WITH YOUR WALLET. | |
| | ••• | ctceo Premium Member join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2009-Jan-24 11:28 am
Caps?I've been watching this scenario very closely for over 5 years, and have even created a petition (» www.ipetitions.com/petit ··· n/PMDBI/). We need to get the word out there or people will start voting with their wallets. Oh, and before your done, click here (» www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm). | |
| | Pv8man join:2008-07-24 Hammond, IN |
Pv8man
Member
2009-Jan-24 1:20 pm
Re: Caps?thank you for starting the petition "ctceo"
I have signed it and donated 10 dollars to the cause. I encourage anybody who loves the internet as it is to do the same. | |
|
Ox3g3n join:2003-06-29 Iron Mountain, MI |
Ox3g3n
Member
2009-Jan-25 9:38 pm
WoW PatchesI'd hate to be a gamer on this. Most WoW patches would own you. | |
| | drewRadiant Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Port Orchard, WA |
drew
Premium Member
2009-Jan-26 1:41 am
Re: WoW PatchesI'm a WoW player and the most patches are under 75MB. The largest patch in recent history was right at a GB. There's only been one other patch that size and it was right before BC came out. | |
|
|
Just a second...Am I the only one that notices that daily cap and the monthly caps conflict?
3GB max daily (then you're throttled to what sounds like ISDN speed) means you could only really get to 90-93GB per month of your full speed, then you be really pressed to pull more than a few more GB at 1.5mbps-300kbps after getting throttled. | |
|
| |
|
|