FCC backs allowing providers to screw their high-volume customers

[TrainableMan]

Yep, that's how the service is sold. Just like cable TV. You pay for it whether you use it or not but when you turn it on you should get what you pay for.

And just to be clear I actually pay more than the basic service, which around here is only 768KB/s. So I am paying more to get extra bandwidth which is somewhat similar to the cable TV subscriber who pays extra for premium channels.

Consider it this way:
Just like when you buy an unlimited wireless plan you expect it to be unlimited - you pay the same price as other unlimited customers whether you use it or not. If you buy a per minute plan then you pay less but then a lot extra if you go over. Now suddenly the FCC says they are switching your unlimited plan over to a per-minute plan and you have no choice because you cannot switch to a carrier that offers unlimited.

 

[Digerati]

It's like paying for cable TV and then turning it off for 19 hours a day.

No it's not. It is totally different. The cable company streams full content 24/7 - even "on demand" content is there at the end of your cable. Whether you can view it or not depends on how your cable box is programed. But with the Internet, you send and receive data "on demand". If you demand little (such as working forums, Googling, and reading email) you get little and use little bandwidth. If you demand a lot, such as movies and TV shows, you get a lot and use a lot of bandwidth. Big difference.

 

[TrainableMan]

Yes it may be easier for cable to correctly estimate how much bandwidth they need because they know the people only have a choice of 200 channels or so and a few "on demand" offerings. So that's great for the cable provider. I didn't say it isn't harder to predict the bandwidth needed for internet than TV. that is why they must monitor total usage and add bandwidth where necessary if levels are constantly higher than predicted. But that was never my point, was it?

My point was that when you pay for cable you expect it to be there anytime you want it because that is the level of service you contracted. I have had cable when I lived elsewhere and if my service was out for a day then I called and got a credit on my bill because I pay for the service to be there. If I pay for a month of 1.5MBPS of internet then I should get it anytime I want it. If they want to offer an unlimited plan and a per minute plan and both are priced fairly then do that; I'll sign up for unlimited. But when I am contracted for an unlimited plan and they force me to a per minute plan and I have no alternative provider and there are no limits to their pricing policies, then that is just wrong.

 

[clifford_cooley]

Maybe the electric company can take this approach. Charge their customers for service available instead of usage.

 

[Digerati]

My point was that when you pay for cable you expect it to be there anytime you want it because that is the level of service you contracted.

Right. And because you can, if you want, wake up in the middle of the night and watch everything that's on. Or you can connect your computer to, with a supplied tuner card, and record your shows when you are away.

But when I am contracted for an unlimited plan and they force me to a per minute plan and I have no alternative provider and there are no limits to their pricing policies, then that is just wrong.

Per minute? I missed where you said that before. That's not being talked about - except maybe at hotels or airports. I have never heard of a per minute plan (or proposal) for permanent home Internet connections. Got a link?

The issue here is bandwidth - or how much content you are downloading (uploading is rarely an issue) per second. Alternatively, you may find plans that charge per gigabyte per month. But a per minute plan I have never heard of.

The problem is the size of the pipes out to your neighborhood, whether it be DSL or cable, is limited. The carriers can only shove so much data down any given pipe in any given second. And if you are using up much greater percentage of the available bandwidth than your neighbor, but he has to pay the same amount, I think that's not fair. Especially if he is being restricted from what he wants to do because you are taking it up most of the time.

Maybe the electric company can take this approach. Charge their customers for service available instead of usage.

No way! People who live in apartments where the utilities are a flat rate included in the rent leave lights on all the time, set the heat at 80°F and the AC at 65°F then leave the door open. People who have to pay for utilities based on usage are much more environmental and cost efficient.

 

[TrainableMan]

Per minute? I missed where you said that before

Here ...

Consider it this way:
Just like when you buy an unlimited wireless plan you expect it to be unlimited - you pay the same price as other unlimited customers whether you use it or not. If you buy a per minute plan then you pay less but then a lot extra if you go over. Now suddenly the FCC says they are switching your unlimited plan over to a per-minute plan and you have no choice because you cannot switch to a carrier that offers unlimited.

I am comparing it to the cell phone per minute charges - I edited a post above, probably at the same time you were typing a response to what I had originally submitted.

No way! People who live in apartments

Clifford was being facetious to make a point; he wasn't actually suggesting it. But if the electric company originally did sell their service as unlimited and then suddenly started charging individual rates based on usage don't you think those people would have complained as well.


I would also point out that this is NOT about bandwidth, bandwidth is the excuse. Cable companies want this is because people have found a way to get their TV cheaper than paying high Cable TV fees and often times it can be delivered on the cable companies own network via internet. So instead of lowering the price of CableTV to compete they wanted to prevent internet TV on their cables. Again in many if not most areas of the USA there is only one cable provider in any area so this would literally eliminate the internet as competition for their already struggling CableTV business. There was an outcry from the public of this throttling and the government (in the form of the FCC) said no you can't throttle bandwidth. Then the companies cry out because start-up companies providing InternetTV cause competition with them.

(Cable exec: ) How can we stop this competition? I want to at least maintain my monopoly on the TV via cable market because we are already loosing ground to satellite so if I can't throttle the competition maybe I can at least charge extra for people to use it.

And that's what this is all about, money and companies wanting more. They provide a service that is dieing or at least loosing a lot of ground, so they want to get some back elsewhere. The cable companies didn't mind when they took away business from the local phone company by offering phone via cable but they sure don't want any more competition for CableTV, they already have more than they can handle with satellite. I can assure you the phone companies don't like providing CLEC services but it at least fosters some competitive rates. CableTV doesn't want a "CLEC company" on their cables undercutting their CableTV. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is about anything but money and staying alive. If you cannot compete fairly by lowering your price then you try to shut out the competition and if that doesn't work you get the government to allow a tax/fee that in essence raises his price to provide the service.

(Cable exec: ) Well let's see, cable TV is $60/mo, internet TV is $20/mo + 49.99 in bandwidth fees from the cable company ... hmm now cableTV doesn't sound so bad? Yeah, we're competitive again plus we may make some money off the suckers who can't figure out that now with our bandwidth fees they are actually paying more! Wahoo we the cable company are now stimulating the economy with higher spending at the expense of the poor schmucks who aren't bright enough to see it and so therefore probably aren't in the high income range to be able to afford it either. And we didn't have to lower our prices to compete ... now aren't we clever and wonderful; {mumbling under their breath} SUCKERS! Thanks FCC.

 

[Digerati]

I would also point out that this is NOT about bandwidth, bandwidth is the excuse. Cable companies want this is because people have found a way to get their TV cheaper than paying high Cable TV fees and often times it can be delivered on the cable companies own network via internet.

I agree Cable companies are concerned about losing revenue from folks getting TV over the Internet but I disagree that it is not about bandwidth too. It is very much about bandwidth. TV over the Internet is but one of the emerging bandwidth hogging services. On-line gaming pushes extremely high resolution (read: very high bandwidth content), and illegal filesharing consumes a lot too. And many DSL providers don't provide TV content.

And back to the per minute thing - read the article in you linked to in your first post - there's nothing in there about per minute charging for Internet service to the home.

 

[TrainableMan]

Even cell phone companies are having problems handling the bandwidth of the internet. Many are dropping unlimited plans or are calling them unlimited but in fine print it has a limit there (this is deceptive and should not be allowed but I guess it's not illegal yet - if the FCC wants to "help" so much they should fix that). But at least with cellular you have a choice - there are lots of competitors and if one doesn't offer a good price on data then you go to another. If you don't need it then you don't buy an unlimited plan you get a "per minute or per KB" version.

The problem is in many if not most parts of the country there is one local phone providing DSL and one local cable providing cable - the only competition is the CLECs which means the company is competing against themselves and the only control on prices is the regulations.

And back to the per minute thing - read the article in you linked to in your first post - there's nothing in there about per minute charging for Internet service to the home.

I'm comparing it to cell phones where you can get per minute/tier pricing/ and unlimited, that's all.

It is frustrating to be forced from unlimited internet to pay per use or tier pricing but an even bigger concern is the companies may find a loophole to run amok on the pricing for those of us who are trapped with little to no choices.

Why can't I get 7MBPS like Cat for $35, because they can sell me 1.5 for $35 and nobody can compete. How much worse will it get? And how high will prices go?

 

[clifford_cooley]

But if the electric company originally did sell their service as unlimited and then suddenly started charging individual rates based on usage don't you think those people would have complained as well.

Electricity meter

As commercial use of electric power spread in the 1880s, it became increasingly important that an electrical energy meter, similar to the then existing gas meters, was required to properly bill customers for the cost of energy, instead of billing for a fixed number of lamps per month. Many experimental types of meter were developed.

I'm pretty sure there were complaints when this was introduced.

 

[TrainableMan]

And many DSL providers don't provide TV content.

Yeah for the DSL provider it's just a win win to go along with the cable companies. They could do away with unlimited plans and charge based on bandwidth like the electric company. Again a somewhat regulated industry where we can sign up to get our bills and pricing elsewhere but the power still comes from the same place (like DSL the competition for electric around here is strictly a CLEC type deal).

I'm pretty sure there were complaints when this was introduced.

WERE? People still complain to this day how much their bill is! :lol:

 

[Digerati]

I'm comparing it to cell phones where you can get per minute/tier pricing/ and unlimited, that's all.

Ah. Okay. It seems we've treaded a bit off topic then as that is not a net neutrality/FCC issue - yet. Of course cell phones started off on a per minute or or minutes per month basis. And cells are a bit different too in that by their very nature, they are mobile and pass, often, from carrier to carrier.

 

[TrainableMan]

Ah. Okay. It seems we've treaded a bit off topic then as that is not a net neutrality/FCC issue - yet. Of course cell phones started off on a per minute or or minutes per month basis. And cells are a bit different too in that by their very nature, they are mobile and pass, often, from carrier to carrier.

Well I started the thread and my issue is with the FCC and there policies for service providers. The per minute was related to cell phone calls and would correlate to the per kilobyte for data. Also cell phone companies now provide internet access via smart phones and they too have issues with screwing people over bandwidth. There are stories of people with unlimited plans getting dropped because they use too much bandwidth and the stories of unlimited plans that turn out not to be unlimited in the fine print. The cell phone industry is also regulated by the FCC and allows these things to happen so it is definitely On Topic to me.

There are only two things that keep this from being as big a concern for me as the land-based internet in my area: 1. Competition that keeps cellular competitive. 2. I don't own a smart phone and don't plan to any time soon


BTW Digerati, you mentioned things like online games etc that use a lot of bandwidth and you threw in "illegal" file sharing. A legal file or an illegal file of the same size uses the same bandwidth so filesharing of any type is a bandwidth issue and I don't feel putting the "illegal" there is really needed. The providers may try to throw "illegal" out there as an issue to make it sound bad but the truth is that data is data and the volume of data shared has grown exponentially.
Also you mention upload isn't as big an issue - for file sharing and for uploading my photos/videos to the web it is most definitely an issue to me; it's one of the things that makes FIOS so attractive.

You are concerned that I am taking your bandwidth and I guess my point is I'm NOT. I pay for that bandwidth and the phone or cable company sells that same piece of bandwidth to 2 or 3 or a 100 of us and then complain because I'm actually using mine. If they sell the service then they need to run enough wire to cover what they sell and if an area is using more than anticipated, which I believe is currently true almost everywhere, well then they need to take their profits they've made by selling the same bandwidth to multiple customers for years and invest it into adding more wires/cables to fulfill the contract they made. But no, instead they cry to the FCC that it's the consumers fault for using what they sold us, "Please, oh please FCC let us raise our rates because we told them they get 1.5MBPS and they believed us and are using it".

So yeah I use my bandwidth and I'm frustrated that every evening from about 8 to 11:30 it drops to 1/3 what I pay for. And I complain and they say, "so what, we're the only provider in the area, what are you going to do about it?" of course they say it more like "no I can't give you a credit, would you like to lower your contracted bandwidth or cancel your service" and I say "No, I want what I contracted for you SOB" and then I hang up. I have no good choice and they know it and now the FCC supports them charging me more for the same poor service I get now.

 

[Digerati]

A legal file or an illegal file of the same size uses the same bandwidth so filesharing of any type is a bandwidth issue and I don't feel putting the "illegal" there is really needed.

Well, I said that because the folks I know that buy legally on line, buy what they want and that's it - that is, they buy 2 or 3 tunes at a time. On the other hand, many of those who participate in illegal filesharing, in particular, via torrents, are transferring massive quantities of large files 24/4. So I think it is pertinent.

If they sell the service then they need to run enough wire to cover what they sell

I agree.

I'm frustrated that every evening from about 8 to 11:30 it drops to 1/3 what I pay for. And I complain and they say, "so what, we're the only provider in the area, what are you going to do about it?" of course they say it more like "no I can't give you a credit, would you like to lower your contracted bandwidth or cancel your service" and I say "No, I want what I contracted for you SOB" and then I hang up. I have no good choice and they know it and now the FCC supports them charging me more for the same poor service I get now.

If that is what is happening then all I can say is that is not the norm. I don't know what recourse you have. Complain to your city council. Join other subscribers in a law suit. Complain, complain, complain. I know in my area, I typically get more bandwidth then my plan calls for. And during prime time, at worse, it drops to what I pay for. For example, it is now 8:46PM my time and I pay for "up to" 15mps. And as can be seen here, with this link from Omaha, 1000 miles away to Washington DC, I'm getting better than that.

 

[TrainableMan]

Yeah if you are in a higher populated area you have more choices and better service but if you live in the rural areas your choices are slim to none.

I contracted 1.5M down & 768KB up but ...

 

[Digerati]

Yeah, I can understand your frustration then. As I mentioned, I don't know what recourse you have but to gather allies in your area and complain. However, you also need to be concerned with your line quality. You should have 0 packets lost and that can sure be contributing to your resulting bandwidth problems. This can be caused by something as simple as a bad Ethernet cable between you and your router or modem, to something further out. Ping your ISP, www.yahoo.com, www.w7forums.com and you should have 0 packets lost. If you have even one packet lost, start replacing your cables starting from your computer.

 

[Nibiru2012]

DSL connections should not vary too much. I had one several years ago and it was always consistent regardless of the time of day. Variance was no more than 4-5% at most.

Have you gone to www.pingtest.net to check your connection. Another good site is www.dslreports.com and go to Tools, then Tweak Tester. It will give you info that may help. Also www.speedguide.net is another good site for tweaks, tests, etc.


NOTE: I see you did go to pingtest.net. My good ol' ADD is kicking in today again! LOL! Certainly makes life interesting.
Thanks for the reminder Digs.

 

[Digerati]

Have you gone to www.pingtest.net to check your connection.

Ummm, note his last post. He posted the results from pingtest.net.

 

[TrainableMan]

I normally get see the file download rates from firefox at 176kbps. But during prime time in the evenings I've seen it drop as low as mid-50s and the norm is about 86 that time of night. You could suppose it might be the source but I have downloaded from multiple locations with the same result and if I try multiple files at once they still average out to a total of 86 so I'm fairly confident it is my ISP.

My service actually went out a couple weeks ago for several hours and they claimed it was because the company was running more connections out here. Two days later my service was going up and down (which I didn't think wasn't much of an improvement at all ) and I have seen no real improvement in the evenings. It was up & down a couple times two nights ago as well. I used to call and ask for an adjustment to my rate for the times it was down; she's like, but it would only be about 35 cents and I say good credit me 35 cents. The last time she told me OK but that would be the last time because they can't guarantee 24x7 service.

 

[Digerati]

You still should have 0 packets lost. With your reported 11% loss, for every 100 you send, you have to resend 11. That's horrible and I would want to eliminate your local network connections as the potential cause. Ethernet cables are very low-tech and if store-bought, cheaply made. That's why I always make my own. But even so, regardless how good the crimp, they can only take so many yanks and trips.

Do you have more than one computer there? Does it have the same horrible packet loss rate? If so, then look between your router and modem, and modem outward. Change ports on your router.

 

[TrainableMan]

I've changed absolutely nothing and this is what it says midday.


I have a single computer with an all-in-one dsl+router/firewall; there is but one single port.