Comcast to limit customers' broadband usage

[Raydal]

Ooops! I just switched to them from DSL. I did this because I use a VOIP phone
service and Netflix online movies. Now I know why the phone company allowed me
to keep my DSL modem and ask me to keep them in mind for the future. The future
may be sooner than I think.

I've always used Comcast though.

-Ray Edwards

[zerofill]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

I learned a lesson long agao...

Never buy your internet from the cable guy if you have a choice.

Cable has many issues including that it is a shared pipe so it gets congested.

Comcast's proposition is their attempt to solve a problem which is that cable is just not capable of providing for an ever increasing consumption of bandwidth.

Its Craptastic!

I have been with Qwest.net DSL for years and I love it. My upload speed is faster than all the cable company options in town and my download speed is not limited at peak times by traffic jams which always happened back in the day when I was on cable.

Cable companies sell you on how fast your connection might be but they fail to tell you that it can be slow as snot during peak hours because you share the pipe.

DSL... it depends on where you are...DSL is **** here. Not to mention DSL is technically shared to. Everyone in your area is going through the same DSLAM...

My Cable is 1up 10dwn and I always get that...But then again Time Warner ran completely new everything in this state...

[jjpmarketing]

Say what you want about Cable... I had the same setup through Insight Communications. I miss my cable connection in the worst ways. It was never slow. In fact I miss my On Demand services on the cable tv side as well. I used to have Earthlink DSL for a bit... they sucked on all aspects. AT&T is not so bad though, although it has been slow at times... but not too often.

With Cable it was always blazing fast.

[deu12000]

I had Verizon DSL for 5 years and have been with Comcast internet for 2 years. Comcast hands down is faster and has much better customer service. I canceled every single Verizon service I had because each problem would take a minimum 2-3 hours (between waiting times and transfers) on the phone before they realized they were clueless. With Comcast they answer the phone within seconds and call transfers take seconds and very little wait times for customer service when there is a wait. Also Verizon doesn't work on weekends. Comcast comes to your house 7 days a week.

250GB had me pissed when I first read about it, but if you think about it you probably can't even push that out of Verizon's lines. I'd download from one site at 125 kilobytes per second with Verizon and with Comcast I can pull 900 kilobytes per second from the same site. Also Verizon's outages were for 2-3 days at a time (a few times a year). The worst I've had with Comcast is about 10 hours (once).

For those that think you need to have a phone line to use DSL, Verizon has something called dry loop DSL which is basically pay an extra $5 per month and you don't need a phone line to get DSL. It's a good idea on paper, but what you won't realize is Verizon is so incompetent that if you tell them one month in advance they still won't have your line ready without a hitch.

Basically I'm a disgruntled Verizon customer after paying them for 5 years of internet service and they bungled up everything at every chance they got. I canceled the phone line after getting $100+ bills every month for years (just on the phone side for US only calls), when I switched to Vonage. I told them to switch me to dry loop DSL a month in advance. It took me 8 hours on the phone for this all to happen. When the day came...guess what? I got dry humped by Verizon. They told me they messed up and it would take them two weeks to fix the problem. I told them to...ass...and called Comcast and they told me just cross the street and buy our modem and you can be up and running instantly. I did what I was suggested had technical difficulties where my internet didn't work instantly but guess what? They came to my house the next day on a Saturday (a day Verizon doesn't work) and fixed the problem.

Ever since then I've been a Comcast supporter, even though I bitch to them every month because they raised my rate from $120 per month to $160 per month and trying to get a deal.

I'm one of those people that hate to be reliant on one company for more than one service, but Comcast is starting to convince me because I can pay $140 and cancel my Vonage and keep the same channels. I'm sure it's a scam to jack the prices up later, but I might fall for the trap next month. There service is the best compared to Verizon which is my only high speed provider comparison. Between the two companies I've spent about 7 years if not more.

[jjpmarketing]

I've never had that problem with Verizon Wireless. Their reps are very knowledgeable about their services, features, etc. I don't think I have ever had to wait on hold for longer than 1 to 2 minutes with them.

AT&T it takes forever to get them on the damn phone. I don't even bother anymore. I have had a few outages since I have been with them, but they usually have it fixed within 12 to 24 hours. But like I said, you won't have long hold times... you won't be able to reach them at all.

You want morons? Try contacting Cingular support reps... which is now AT&T. Complete idiots. I may have to switch to AT&T for wireless service because of the area I live in... I hope I never have to call their reps.

But back to the original topic... When I was with Insight Communications... I never had to wait on hold mainly because it was a local company. I did have outages and they rarely lasted more than 24 hours. To me that is acceptable.

With AT&T Internet, I am forced to use their DSL modem that has built in router. I cannot stand that. I would much rather use my own router. I now don't use my router, because I don't want to add an extra hop just to use my own router.

[rondo]

Here in Australia capped plans are standard. I pay $50 for 20GB per month. The most common plans here are under 5GB per month.
Sounds like you guys have it pretty good.


Andrew

[JFrost]

They are out if they attempt to control the Internet at all.
Satellite Internet is available anywhere in the world for a slightly higher than cable monthly cost. Bye Bye Comcast

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by JFrost

They are out if they attempt to control the Internet at all.
Satellite Internet is available anywhere in the world for a slightly higher than cable monthly cost. Bye Bye Comcast

Is Satellite Internet unlimited usage and if so, what's the speed?

[deu12000]

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

I've never had that problem with Verizon Wireless...

You're right I've used Verizon wireless for the last two years (while I had Comcast) and they are totally separate from Verizon DSL and phone service. There wireless internet service runs under their cell phone brand which has great service, but their internet speed sucks compared to DSL and is horrible compared to Comcast.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Is Satellite Internet unlimited usage and if so, what's the speed?

The speed is much slower than cable (a little slower than DSL) and it's like $130 per month (last time I checked and I'm in NJ also).

[stevenwilson]

It seems that it would be hard to go over the limit they set,but one should really not be limited to their use for something they pay a premium price for.

[threeg5]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

The bad part of this is, Comcast says they do not have the capability to give you stats of your Web usage.

I saw this article this morning and called them immediately.

I talked to 3 different people and the first 2 had no idea of what I was talking about. The third guy I got on the phone was familiar with the new policy, but says as of now and the future customers will not be able to view their own web usage statistics.

So, it boils down to a guess on our part.

first of all I am not a Comcast user but very nervous because usually all The cable Co.'s seems to follow Comcast lead. My immediate thought on this is if they are unable to provide to us then how are we able to make sure that we do not go over this amount per theis standards then they are more or less targeting certain people or though it could be said or interpreted. With that said They are saying that it is unreasonable that anyone would need to use that amount. Ok well if I don't know where I satnad then how to I budget into that FCC hey FCC hey FCC how can they charge me for something that they are not allowing me to monitor what I have. here take this bag of M&M's and you can only eat 55% of them "What? You need to know how many are in there. No Way" Or better yet isn't that kinda like driving your car around with no fuel gauge to be able to tell when you are going to run out of fuel. I don't find this as fair and it is not just money because they are talking of permentantly banning you from obtaining service with them. What are they scared of is what I think we should wnat to know from this and also how unethical is this anyways?
Arrgghh
Thanks for reading the ramblin'
Mike G

[threeg5]

Originally Posted by rondo

Here in Australia capped plans are standard. I pay $50 for 20GB per month. The most common plans here are under 5GB per month.
Sounds like you guys have it pretty good.


Andrew

I think it's more the fact that they are not going to allow you to monitor it. or tell you where you stand in any way.
but if they could or do then I guess "cap away" it would at that point be fair given the prices weren't too ridiculous.

[valerieSONORA]

I'm glad I'm not a Comcast customer. I would not like having to worry about how much bandwith I'm using. And they can't even tell you how much, so you'd have to guess. And I wouldn't have any idea. If I were a comcast customer, I'd switch to dsl. Yes, you'd have to get a landline, but here it only costs arount $17 or $18 a month plus tax and fees for the basic service. It ends up being cheaper than cable internet anyway.

Oh and I download tons of stuff so I wouldn't be surprised if I went over.

[John Rowe]

250GB a month = major thief!

At least at this stage of technology. If you see it differently,
feel free to enlighten me about current usage.

.

[SeanIM]

Great, I just signed up for them as I'm having to move to Illinois for 12 months so that wifey can finish her ph.D.

Fortunately most of my b/w can be run from either my remote windows box or off one of my *nix servers that host my webpages. Anyone charging me more than 60 bucks a mbps irks me as a close friend is a senior network engineer for a telco and can get me pipe at cost.

Comcast needs some competition...btw, I hear more and more ISPs are going to try this move this year. Don't be shocked when cox, charter, verizon, etc pull this move.

I hope this backfires on them. Soft economy and other options might just put a quash on this. Although I think what they're trying to battle is the massive torrent & p2p downloads that some let run rampant without metering.

-S

[Paul Myers]

Comcrap ranks right up there with Hellsouth.

If they were the cable provider in my area, I'd go back to Verizon's DSL, or FIOS if available, in about 30 minutes. (That's how long it would take to switch.)

I would likely never reach those limits. I just find Comcrap's attitude, especially as it relates to net neutrality, to be offensive.

Yes, I would pay more, for slower service, if it meant that some jackass with an axe to grind couldn't control whose info I got and how fast I got it. Not to mention the crappy spam filtering Comcrap has and how much legitimate email they toss into the virtual dumpster.

Recommendation: Get your own domain and hosting, where you can control your spam filtering. NEVER trust your ISP to handle that for you. Especially Comcrap.

I spend a fair bit every month for a dedicated server that runs at about 1-2% load, just so that I can be sure that legitimate email gets delivered to me and the other folks who use my system. I'll tell you, it's been worth every penny.

I have a landline anyway, just so I don't lose phone service when the cable goes out. (I won't rely on any cell phone to be working at any time.)


Paul

[dustinlemos]

Guys, I really don't think this is as big of a deal as you're making it sound.

250GB of bandwidth a month is a LOT of bandwidth. You can check email and facebook all you want and you won't hit that cap.

To put things in perspective, you would have to stream 2 DVD-quality movies every day for 30 days straight. And you would still have 10GB of bandwidth left over.

my 1mb broadband connection couldn't use that much bandwidth in a month, even if I wanted it to. It's just not fast enough (and 1mb/sec isn't exactly slow).

[junker86]

All this complaining and talk of switching carriers is making me laugh. I've been in Australia for a year now (was previously in New Jersey) and here I pay $40 a month for a 10GB download limit. What I wouldn't do for 250GB a month.

The limit on data usage is actually to help its users, rather than hinder them by limiting excessive downloading that clogs up the network by a very small customer base.

The only possible way you could use up 250GBs of bandwidth is if you are downloading somewhere around the equivalent of 8 high quality (somewhere around a GB each), feature length, movies EVERY DAY. If you think you are gonna have problems because you have a family and you check alot of emails or whatever you should probably stop and think before you start posting about a topic you know nothing about.

[Lloyd Lopes]

You all really need to get over yourselves....

I'm in South Africa. I pay $120 USD for a 4MB line and a 3GB cap. Yes , thats right...3GB and its over.

What are you all moaning for???? If I was offered 250GB I for that price I would wet myself...

[Tim Franklin]

Some good points and posts,

I think the problem here is not the amount of the Cap but the way they choose to handle the "problem"

They fail in two areas, one is that providing accurate statistics, so you know how much bandwidth you are using.

Two, they provide no option for excessive users, instead they state that offenders will be snuffed out, what kind of a solution is that, If someone is a heavy user I am sure they would not mind paying a small fee for the extra bandwidth they use, as long as it is fair.

Or they could be given the option of an upgrade to more bandwidth.

This sounds like bad marketing, If a company has a problem, (which obviously they do) then what you need to do is create a fair solution to that problem, 250Gb sounds like a lot, at least now it does, but I remember designing web-page's around 20kb to make sure they loaded quickly, now it is not that big of an issue, with the average webpage being 60kb to 120kb

eventually, that 250GB will not be much at all, granted that is in the future.

The problem as I see it with this type of limited access is that the ISP could decide to block certain websites that tend to consume more bandwidth.

For instance if a website loads a video of 10MB and the ISP notices that a lot of bandwidth is consumed they could decide to block access to that IP, creating a real problem for both consumers and developers.

This is what is commonly referred to as the slippery sloop.

It is a dangerous thing to allow this kind of limiting without boarders.

Over all it is a bad solution to a problem that could be handled differently.

just a few cents worth.

[valerieSONORA]

I don't know anything about bandwidth but it looks like the limit is no big deal. Doesn't effect me anyway cause there's no comcast here.

I'm just glad I'm in good ole USA where I get unlimited bandwidth (even though I don't understand bandwidth) and fast internet for thirty something a month.

[Josh Anderson]

"I don't know anything about bandwidth but it looks like the limit is no big deal. Doesn't effect me anyway cause there's no comcast here."

It may not... unless you publish a lot of large videos as part of an online business... then it may effect you if your clients are Comcast users and if they become overly bandwidth conscious due to the new constraints. Most people do not know a GB from a MB even though as comcast says very few users will ever need to worry about the limit.

"I'm just glad I'm in good ole USA where I get unlimited bandwidth (even though I don't understand bandwidth) and fast internet for thirty something a month."

Comcast is the largest cable company in the..... USA.

For those of you who say it is to "help the users" its not...

It is to help the cable company who is selling more service than they had bandwidth to provide users.

One more reason to look for a provider that has the resources to provide what you need if you do no like traffic jams and bandwidth limits.

If I were living in a part of the world that limited me to 3gb or even 10gb a month I would have to become an expat and go where there is bandwidth to be had.

Here in Idaho I am limited in my options... but I still get 1.5 down and 856 up on my dsl connection which beats the snot out of the 256 up that cable offers here which you only get if its not peak use time.

[jjpmarketing]

I am pretty content with my current setup. 6 MB down, 512kb up. Anything less than 512kb up would be a real pain in the a**. But even with large uploads, my connection works well enough that I can walk away from it, and come back later.

When I first moved to my current residence... The only DSL I could get was 1.5 MB down. It was extremely slow. Then over the course of year they gradually upped it to 6 MB. I couldn't get cable at all.

I am glad Comcast is not in my area... I always like Insight when I had cable. Small companies are usually good... and less worried about their bottom line. Large companies like Comcast lack the flexibility to have that luxury.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Okay, here's the deal. Sometimes you really just gotta dig into these things.

I just got off the phone with Comcast after an hour of being read the party
line and FINALLY getting the truth about this. I had to make one big stink to
get it.

Here it is in a nutshell.

The technology right now to even track bandwidth usage per user is not
in the hands of Comcast. They expect developers to have it ready by
February 2009.

Just before that time comes, notices will go out to each Comcast user. You
WILL be able to track your own usage. How is not yet certain but it will be
something that you can do.

For now, don't even worry about it, not even the October 1 announcement
that just went out. This is still a work in progress.

[GarrieWilson]

The average consumer does NOT need 250gb/month.

If a consumer does, he needs to:

a) Get some sun
b) Stop DLing MP3s, Movies, Games, etc. - You know illegally.
c) Stop sharing his downloads

Out of everyone who has replied, how many of you are paying business rates currently? Anyone? If you need more bandwidth you upgrade to a business plan, get an extra account, etc.

Also, limiting ISP bandwidth is no different than having a limit on your webserver.

I dont think some of you realize how much 250gb is.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

The average consumer does NOT need 250gb/month.

If a consumer does, he needs to:

a) Get some sun
b) Stop DLing MP3s, Movies, Games, etc. - You know illegally.
c) Stop sharing his downloads

Out of everyone who has replied, how many of you are paying business rates currently? Anyone? If you need more bandwidth you upgrade to a business plan, get an extra account, etc.

Also, limiting ISP bandwidth is no different than having a limit on your webserver.

I dont think some of you realize how much 250gb is.

Garrie, you're right. I have NO idea how much 250GB is. That's why I want
to find out what I'm using so I can have some idea. When it comes to this
technical stuff, I am clueless. So if they can't tell me what I'm using, what
am I supposed to do, guess?

The whole thing is crazy, regardless of how much 250GB is.

[GarrieWilson]

Steven,

Here are some programs that will track ho much you upload/download.

1. BitMeter II | Internet Tools Download | PC World
2. Cyber Bandwidth Monitor: Keep track of your bandwidth usage - Download Squad
3. How to monitor your Internet bandwidth usage in Windows - Simple Help

I used 1 for about 5 minutes to test it and have used 3 in the past.

Let me know how much you actually use if you try it.

Garrie

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Steven,

Here are some programs that will track ho much you upload/download.

1. BitMeter II | Internet Tools Download | PC World
2. Cyber Bandwidth Monitor: Keep track of your bandwidth usage - Download Squad
3. How to monitor your Internet bandwidth usage in Windows - Simple Help

I used 1 for about 5 minutes to test it and have used 3 in the past.

Let me know how much you actually use if you try it.

Garrie

Thanks Garrie, that's really going to help. I'll have to install it on my
daughter's laptop too because she uses my connection when she's home
from college.

Much appreciated.

[jjpmarketing]

I may have over-reacted a bit... 250 GB is a big number... running a server is about the only thing that would exceed that amount.

The question remains though... How is this going to affect web hosting? If the cable company is doing it... whose to say the big telecommunications companies that provide bandwidth to hosting companies won't start doing this.

No matter if normal users don't exceed this amount, it still sets a dangerous precedent for other companies to follow suit. This is a major step backwards in my opinion. This could send internet services back to the early dayz... web 0.5

Few video applications around. You could mention the days of YouTube to your kids... and they will be like "You what?"

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

I may have over-reacted a bit... 250 GB is a big number... running a server is about the only thing that would exceed that amount.

The question remains though... How is this going to affect web hosting? If the cable company is doing it... whose to say the big telecommunications companies that provide bandwidth to hosting companies won't start doing this.

No matter if normal users don't exceed this amount, it still sets a dangerous precedent for other companies to follow suit. This is a major step backwards in my opinion. This could send internet services back to the early dayz... web 0.5

Few video applications around. You could mention the days of YouTube to your kids... and they will be like "You what?"

I agree. It actually could come to that. If people have to start being
concerned about what they do online so as not to have their service shut
down, it is going to affect a lot of things we take for granted now. And
yes, YouTube might become a thing of the past.

It certainly isn't impossible.

[GarrieWilson]

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

The question remains though... How is this going to affect web hosting? If the cable company is doing it... whose to say the big telecommunications companies that provide bandwidth to hosting companies won't start doing this.

Ummm. They already do and have since the beginning. It's just cheaper now.

My host provides 2000GB/Month.

For me to get unlimited, I would have to pay $50/month extra, on the lowend, BUT I can only send a max of 10mb/sec. Which means if I have a lot of people at once, their speed would be slow. (ie 10 people would only be able to download at 1mb/sec. 100 people at 100kb/sec.)

If I want unlimited at 100mb/sec it would cost $1500/month extra on the lowend.

Garrie

[jjpmarketing]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... what I was saying is that if this happens with ISP's... whose to say it won't have an adverse affect on hosting. Sure you may get 2000 GB per month... but after this the bigger companies might increase their rates making it even more expensive for the same bandwidth.

[GarrieWilson]

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... what I was saying is that if this happens with ISP's... whose to say it won't have an adverse affect on hosting. Sure you may get 2000 GB per month... but after this the bigger companies might increase their rates making it even more expensive for the same bandwidth.

If they charge more, we just charge more if needed.

You could also look at it that you will need less bandwidth because you have less people dowloading.

The sky isnt falling over this or what it can lead to.

I wish people would get worked up over things that really matter.

You know, losing freedoms every day instead of "oh no I might have to pay more to download"

Garrie

[jjpmarketing]

Freedoms? I live in KY. I can't think of any freedoms I don't have. We live in probably the Free-est country on the planet. Is there a freedom you feel you have lost?

[GarrieWilson]

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

Freedoms? I live in KY. I can't think of any freedoms I don't have. We live in probably the Free-est country on the planet. Is there a freedom you feel you have lost?

I can name a freedom you lost, in your town. You did get it back, temporarily, but will lose it again if you havent already.

The right for a business to decide if patrons can smoke or not.

Of course many people think this is a good thing but I believe CHOICE is a good thing. Plus, it leads to other things. Like banning...

1. Transfat
2. Baggy pants
3. Music

All of the above have been banned at some point across the US in the past 20 years. 2 of the 3, within the last 6 months.

I could name lots of freedoms and civil liberties that you have lost. Most you will never know about. Until you need them.

But hey, as long as we can download...

Anyway, I digress.

Garrie

PS I'm from KY. Lived there for 32/33 years.

[jjpmarketing]

I feel this would get way off topic. I have created a new thread in the off topic forum if you want to discuss it further.

New Thread: American Freedoms

[Justin Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Lopes

You all really need to get over yourselves....

I'm in South Africa. I pay $120 USD for a 4MB line and a 3GB cap. Yes , thats right...3GB and its over.

What are you all moaning for???? If I was offered 250GB I for that price I would wet myself...

Would you be irritated if your 4MB and 3GB was suddenly cut to 2MB and 1GB with no reduction in price.

This issue isn't so much that the prices are unreasonable, just that they're imposing restrictions and still charging the same amount of money. So you're less for the same amount of money.

Plus, cable companys in the States are notorious gougers.

[Floyd Fisher]

Originally Posted by Scott Ames

Customers who top 250 GB in a month twice in a six-month timeframe could have service terminated for a year.

Ah.. yeah.. send me to my room and make me stand in the corner too. I don't think so. I think I'll fire Comcast before that happens. How the freak am I supposed to know what my usage is? They had better start providing stats.

Unless you're running an online game server, bittorrent server, or trade pirated software in the hundreds of copies, I highly doubt you will ever come close to, let alone exceed 250gb a month.

You might be able to do it if you're watching lots of pirated movies, but I doubt you do that either.

250gb is quite generous IMHO. Time Warners users will soon be limited to 5gb, now that sucks. Guess you should never go with a broadband provider owned by AOL, eh?

[valerieSONORA]

Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher

250gb is quite generous IMHO. Time Warners users will soon be limited to 5gb, now that sucks. Guess you should never go with a broadband provider owned by AOL, eh?

OMG, I almost signed up for Time Warner cable when I moved recently. Glad I didn't. I was going to, but I would have to wait at least 2 weeks before they could install it and I didn't wanna go 2 more weeks w/o net.

ps. Are dsl companies going to limit GB?

[jjpmarketing]

Here is an article about Time Warner's Cap.

40GB for $55 per month: Time Warner bandwidth caps arrive

[Carl Hughes]

hmmmm that does not sound good at all I had better look into my isp and see what the deal is with them but since I am dsl this may be a non issue...I have contended for years that dsl beats cable any day of the week as cable is shared bandwidth where dsl is not...my advice go dsl my speed never slows down because "too many people are on it" and get satelite tv.

[jjpmarketing]

Cable TV is still better. I loved On Demand TV when I had Insight. I couldn't stand the satelite losing signal all the time. That and Cable TV will fix your problem for free... Satelite won't do that.

On the internet side, both are shared. Cable is more or less shared within the neighborhood... and DSL is shared at the switching station... or whatever it is called. The DSL option is probably better because it covers a larger demographic of people. The cable option is better, but only if you know your neighbors...

I lived in a neighborhood of email checkers. Zero bandwidth used. I never had speed problems at all. But on the upside DSL limits bandwidth to 6 MB... where my cable connection was 10 MB... so in the end I guess it balances out for both.

Until these caps came into place.

[Carl Hughes]

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

Cable TV is still better. I loved On Demand TV when I had Insight. I couldn't stand the satelite losing signal all the time. That and Cable TV will fix your problem for free... Satelite won't do that.

On the internet side, both are shared. Cable is more or less shared within the neighborhood... and DSL is shared at the switching station... or whatever it is called. The DSL option is probably better because it covers a larger demographic of people. The cable option is better, but only if you know your neighbors...

I lived in a neighborhood of email checkers. Zero bandwidth used. I never had speed problems at all. But on the upside DSL limits bandwidth to 6 MB... where my cable connection was 10 MB... so in the end I guess it balances out for both.

Until these caps came into place.

well I have satellite TV and rarely loose signal even in rain storms. (depends on how well it is aimed) and dsl is not shared dsl=dedicated subscriber line cable is always shared at least that is how I understand it. (if someone knows the tech side of the two please enlighten us)

[jjpmarketing]

yes you have a dedicated line to the switching station...

It is at that point the line is shared with everyone who is served by that station.

They wanted to charge my Dad, $120 to fix his satelite problem. In my opinion the dish is the Satelite companies equipment even though you paid for it. They shouldn't charge to fix it.

Cable doesn't do this. They only charge if you miss an appointment or the issue is your fault like a dog chewed through your line or something along those lines.

[Matt Fulger]

Hey guys,

I have a couple things to say about this issue.

First of all, 250GB/mo is a ****load of bandwidth that most users (even power users) will never exceed. That said, I don't agree with caps or at least the way they go about placing them upon their users. However, if any of you get out your contract from your ISP, you will likely find that you already have caps placed on your account and always have.

There's usually some sort of limitations in the fine print that simply aren't enforced as yet. At least, I noticed there was when I was with Verizon DSL.

Hosting accounts always have had limits on bandwidth of some sort. Even the so-called "unmetered" bandwidth almost always has some sort of cap attached to it. Read the fine print in the TOS and all the links within the TOS and you will almost ALWAYS find a cap on "unmetered" bandwidth.

These caps are placed on hosts by server providers and placed on server providers from their upline providers and so on. So it's really not as big of a deal as it seems. It's just being made public now.

[vent]
As for customer service, I left verizon specifically because their customer service sucks. Well, that and because they kept to adding services to my already expensive package. I had to call them at least every other month, sometimes every month to have them remove **** I never asked for. Their blanket response was to tell me I signed up for these "extras" online. Bull****!

I dreaded getting my phone bill EVERY month. I came to expect having to call customer service. Usually several times (to get a rep that will actually help) and spending several hours per month just getting my bill back to the original package I signed up for.

In fact, before I left them completely, I simply separated my DSL service from my regular phone bill. You see, Verizon was sending me bogus bills and cutting off my DSL if I didn't pay the FULL amount supposedly owed. I could still use my phone and the unlimited long distance, but no internet even though the DSL portion was not in dispute and would be paid. I was only disputing the bogus add-on charges that kept appearing on my bill. So I paid everything except those extra charges.

Why they would disconnect the DSL was beyond me. But I finally talked to a rep that admitted getting angry customers calling because of the same problems I was having ALL the time. ALL day EVERY day and suggested that I separate my DSL bill from my phone bill to avoid this problem.

That worked quite well for awhile. But the ensuing monthly headaches had to come to an end. I stayed offline for almost 2 years since Verizon was the only high speed provider in my area and I refused to use them.

Now that I've moved, I have another option. So now I'm currently using SuddenLink which I'm not very impressed with either.

The first day they installed their service I had problems. I was constantly losing my internet connection so I called customer service. Their customer service might as well be non-existent. When you finally do get someone on the phone, they always blame your equipment right away. First they say it's your ethernet adapter and/or router. If you can convince them that that is NOT your problem, they say it's your PC configuration (even though they are the ones that configure and install their service on your PC).

I was pretty sure that the problem I was having was the result of a faulty modem and/or faulty cable and I told them this. But I went out and bought a new ethernet card because they were convinced that was my problem (I was 99% sure that wasn't the problem but since you can pick them up so cheap nowadays, I got a new one).

I installed the new card, had the same problem and called them back. They still tried to convince me it was the ethernet card or router again. I told them it had to be the modem they provided me, as everything worked fine before (on Verizon DSL) and I wasn't using the router at this point. Since I was using a brand new eithernet card, it was highly unlikely to be the problem. Not to mention the fact that the home network was still working fine when the router was hooked up (even with the old ethernet card). They still refused to accept that it could be their equipment and basically said there was nothing they could do.

I noticed that one of the LEDs on the modem was blinking rapidly and told the customer service rep
about this. She proceeded to tell me that what I was telling her was impossible cuz she could see me
online on her end and if my modem was REALLY doing that, she wouldn't be able to see me. She said
the LED should be on constantly and only blink during setup.

Well, I happened to remember having this same problem a few years before and had purchased my own cable modem. So after arguing with these clowns until I was blue in the face and getting no results, I simply hooked up my own modem and called them back. Now, I was online and wasn't constantly getting dropped.

However, they "couldn't" guarantee service unless we lease one of theirs (forget the fact, that the one I have was purchased from them when they went under the name of Charter Communications). So I agreed to lease another one of theirs. Good thing I had one of my own while I waited, it took them 3 or 4 days to bring me a new one.

The first guy that showed up merely replaced the cable splitter and installed their old, junky modem, which of course did NOT help.

So I called back and got all the same scripted bull**** answers.

So we hung up and called back (I've found that sometimes you just have to get the right person on the other end of the line). We went through the same story with the same replies. It MUST be scripted. However, after explaining to this guy the whole story he mentioned that we might want to sign up for their "wire maintainance" plan as we would get better, no wait..."preferred customer service".

So we sign up for the "wire maintainance" plan for an extra $5/mo. Now, he adds this to our account and we hang up and call back again right away. All of the sudden, they accept that it could either be the cable itself or their new modem! Wow, $5/mo extra and now it just might be the modem and/or the cable. Hmmm....why didn't I think of that?

When they sent a second guy out, he did replace the old modem with a new one of the same junky design. Once they installed the new one, I started having problems again within few hours.

I will admit, after paying the extra $5/mo their customer service level seemed to step up a bit and they scheduled an appt. within 48 hours to come out and check the old cable. However, who wants to wait 48 hours when you are 99% sure it must be the cable and you happen to have some extra digital cable lying around?

So obviously, I ended up running the new cable myself.

The part that really ticked me off about this entire situation is that we specifically asked them how much the installation would be if they were to run brand new cable from the box into the house and to the computers to begin with. In other words, we paid the install price for all new cable to begin with. But the original installer refused to run the new cable.

I wasn't personally home to oversee this guy when he showed up or it probably would have gone differently, very differently. But then, I'm a bit more demanding than my better half. Especially when we paid extra to begin with.
[/vent]

Ok, Ok. Sorry for the venting, but reading these posts just brought up these memories and I couldn't hold back. LOL

All the best!

Peace & Prosperity,
Matt Fulger

[jjpmarketing]

Let me put it to you like this, Matt. That is typical of ISP support from a large company.

When I worked for Charter Communications in their Tech Support department, I with all my technical knowledge was placed alongside people that had come from their cable tv customer support department. These people I swear to you, didn't know jack about computers. They barely knew enough to even run the software the company was using to manage accounts.

How can any company expect to provide decent support to customers doing something like that? I spent the majority of time showing them how to do their job... which should have been taken care of in their 8 weeks of training. Yes 8 weeks.

Then they started forcing reps to recommend Charter's High Speed Security Suite, which was powered by F-Secure... which if you think Norton's is a resource hog... this would put Norton's resource use to shame.

This was for customers still running Win9x with little ram. Absolutely horrible. Then they tried to charge customers $150 for a router they could go to any electronics store and get for $50 to $60. Completely insane. That is when I got the F out of there.

But that is how big companie roll when it comes to customer support. I guess it could be worse. They could've just outsourced it to India.

[Erum Munir]

Wow! And I thought it was only Internet companies in Pakistan that were crappy LOL.

We have two extremes here. Either it is completely unlimited download or they are capping at 10GB - 20GB. I need to upload (websites and products) way too much to not go above that limit.

However, even if the limit was 250GB and I knew I most probably wouldn't go over it, I would still want to switch to unlimited.

Why?

Because I still remember that horrid feeling on dialup where you had to watch every hour you were online as you were charged top price per hour. Now I have gotten used to the freedom of going online and not having to watch the clock. I would never want to go back to where I have to watch what I am doing on the Internt and whether I am exceeding limits. Just not a pleasant feeling IMO. I don't want to feel restricted and I want to be able to work in peace.

Where the companies have users who may be using GBs like anything, they will also have users who are using almost nothing. If someone is just checking personal email, they might not even go over 1 gig. It balances off in the end.

Are they charging the people who are using less bandwidth a nominal sum? If they think people who use more bandwidth should pay more, then people who don't should pay less, too.

[aggron]

Yohohooho .. free market will win. Seriously speed is increasing due to better communication devices /hardware as much as increase in internet usage . Just let the markets decide .

[Matt Fulger]

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

Let me put it to you like this, Matt. That is typical of ISP support from a large company.

I'm aware of that, but it doesn't make me any happier about it. LOL

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

When I worked for Charter Communications in their Tech Support department, I with all my technical knowledge was placed alongside people that had come from their cable tv customer support department. These people I swear to you, didn't know jack about computers. They barely knew enough to even run the software the company was using to manage accounts.

How can any company expect to provide decent support to customers doing something like that? I spent the majority of time showing them how to do their job... which should have been taken care of in their 8 weeks of training. Yes 8 weeks.

Well, yeah, that's why sometimes I use the hang up and call back method in hopes of getting someone like you on the line. Because in MOST cases, I know more about the setup than they do. In fact, every time I've had Cable internet (Charter/SuddenLink) either myself or my better half has to configure the modem for the moron installers. Including this last time.

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

Then they started forcing reps to recommend Charter's High Speed Security Suite, which was powered by F-Secure... which if you think Norton's is a resource hog... this would put Norton's resource use to shame.

This was for customers still running Win9x with little ram. Absolutely horrible. Then they tried to charge customers $150 for a router they could go to any electronics store and get for $50 to $60. Completely insane. That is when I got the F out of there.

Yeah, I recall them pushing Internet Security on us too. Fortunately, I was wise enough to refuse the service. They also tried to charge me $250 for a router that I had returned AFTER I returned it. It took me quite a few phone calls to get that one dealt with. And now SuddenLink charges a ridiculous amount for this cheesy $15 modem their currently pushing.

Originally Posted by jjpmarketing

But that is how big companie roll when it comes to customer support. I guess it could be worse. They could've just outsourced it to India.

Good point there and they probably will eventually. Verizon already does.

Matt Fulger

[jjpmarketing]

I'm sorry you had to deal with the Charter experience. You know they actually had a major problem of not having enough field technicians to work on line issues. It takes 6 months to train those guys. Some customers had to wait well over a month to get their internet fixed.

I would cancel in a heartbeat if a company ever told me that. I wouldn't care if it was the only internet connection within a 50 mile radius. I would move. That is total crap.

These companies need to move their support to Costa Rica if they outsource. I dealt with a company that had outsourced to Costa Rica... and I could understand every single word. They could understand me. Other than the fact that it is outsourced... I would say I was happy with that. I would prefer the jobs stay in America, but if they don't then Costa Rica gets my vote.

I have never been able to understand India reps. They don't understand me. It is always a difficult experience.