Well today is the day.. I start getting limited!

[valkry]

What's out of line about "Unlimited". If I was selling cars with 100k warranty, and then decided a year later I couldn't afford to support a 100k warranty so changed it to a 20k warranty, there would be words exchanged.

Don't advertise oranges if you're selling apples.

That's a pretty bad analogy incredibly skewed to suit your point of view. An ISP provides a service. It depends on the exact terminology used but I think most ISPs provide their service packages in such a way that it is only valid for the amount of time you subscribe to the package. If you have a fixed subscription for 1 year then that package should be valid for you for 1 year. If you are on a month to month rolling plan then that service is valid for one month. You do not have a magical lifetime subscription.

If I was running an ISP I would be more than happy to get rid of the top 1%- 2% bandwidth users on the residential plans especially if your residential bandwidth usage during residential peak times exceeds bandwidth usage during your commercial peak times. Cutting the bad apples benefits the majority of your clients.

Here is another analogy for you:
There is a bridge with 8 lanes, 4 one way and 4 the other way. Every piece of information you request is transported by a courier on a motorcycle across the bridge. The bridge supplies information to 10 customers and easily handles the load. Suddenly one of the customers starts sending back to back buses across the bridge 24/7 effectively using 2 lanes all by himself. So what are my options? Build a bigger bridge. That cost needs to be passed on to someone. If I pass it on to the single user that abuses the system I will take criticism for my pricing structures yet I do not have enough high volume users to justify the cost of a bigger bridge and be able to pass it on to those users only. So what if I make a bigger bridge and pass the cost on to all my users? Well, I won't be competitive in the market anymore and it hardly seems fair to pass the cost on to my favorite customers with low usage who I may very likely lose. So what about a limitation on the amount of traffic so I can maybe get those high volume users to leave for another service while not getting much negative publicity in turn? Hmmm, sounds like a plan.

The point is though, that originally there had been a limit put on that bridge, and the guy with the buses was under it, now you are restricting the limit even more by going back on the original deal.

[Tasty]

What's out of line about "Unlimited". If I was selling cars with 100k warranty, and then decided a year later I couldn't afford to support a 100k warranty so changed it to a 20k warranty, there would be words exchanged.

Don't advertise oranges if you're selling apples.

That's a pretty bad analogy incredibly skewed to suit your point of view. An ISP provides a service. It depends on the exact terminology used but I think most ISPs provide their service packages in such a way that it is only valid for the amount of time you subscribe to the package. If you have a fixed subscription for 1 year then that package should be valid for you for 1 year. If you are on a month to month rolling plan then that service is valid for one month. You do not have a magical lifetime subscription.

If I was running an ISP I would be more than happy to get rid of the top 1%- 2% bandwidth users on the residential plans especially if your residential bandwidth usage during residential peak times exceeds bandwidth usage during your commercial peak times. Cutting the bad apples benefits the majority of your clients.

Here is another analogy for you:
There is a bridge with 8 lanes, 4 one way and 4 the other way. Every piece of information you request is transported by a courier on a motorcycle across the bridge. The bridge supplies information to 10 customers and easily handles the load. Suddenly one of the customers starts sending back to back buses across the bridge 24/7 effectively using 2 lanes all by himself. So what are my options? Build a bigger bridge. That cost needs to be passed on to someone. If I pass it on to the single user that abuses the system I will take criticism for my pricing structures yet I do not have enough high volume users to justify the cost of a bigger bridge and be able to pass it on to those users only. So what if I make a bigger bridge and pass the cost on to all my users? Well, I won't be competitive in the market anymore and it hardly seems fair to pass the cost on to my favorite customers with low usage who I may very likely lose. So what about a limitation on the amount of traffic so I can maybe get those high volume users to leave for another service while not getting much negative publicity in turn? Hmmm, sounds like a plan.

The point is though, that originally there had been a limit put on that bridge, and the guy with the buses was under it, now you are restricting the limit even more by going back on the original deal.

Depends how long the deal was set for as well though. If it was for 24 months and they change it 2 months in thats pretty shabby but if you hit 25 months and they decide to change it well bad luck

[valkry]

^Yup

As it is, I have no symphathy for the OP at all seeing as I would probably see a cold day in hell before I can get 250gb a month internet, let alone downgraded to that much.

[Tasty]

^Yup

As it is, I have no symphathy for the OP at all seeing as I would probably see a cold day in hell before I can get 250gb a month internet, let alone downgraded to that much.

Yeah stupid telstra

[Griznah]

I'm paying ~$80/mnth (well, half that first 6mnths) for 25mbit/2mbit unlimited. Sad part is, there's people that can get 100/100 for $100/mnth

[Gomotron]

The point is though, that originally there had been a limit put on that bridge, and the guy with the buses was under it, now you are restricting the limit even more by going back on the original deal.

It's that kind of attitude that has lead to a number of different abuses on, say, Wall Street, although it's entirely applicable in many other situations. The deregulation of 1999 that allowed banks to leverage capital in risky ways was taken as de rigeur with the consequences now glaringly obvious.

I guess companies will now always have to assume their customers will abuse whatever privileges they are allowed, and act accordingly.

And for what it's worth, I was recently hit with this type of cap with my 3G EVDO modem from Verizon. They used to have no cap for monthly data usage and they switched it to a low usage and high usage plan, getting rid of any type of unlimited plan. I unfortunately only found this out after receiving my first bill (after my account had been set automatically to a low usage plan) and I ended getting stuck with a $400 bill (their low usage plan is something paltry like 250 MB a month, and the high limit plan is a more reasonable 5 GB a month). I was so angry that I nearly cancelled my plan completely, but I talked to a CSR for Verizon who changed my plan and made it retroactive to the current month (couldn't do anything for the month that was already billed, but as I was already over limit for the current month, it saved me money anyways).

This provided me the impetus to have a cable modem put into my office, as I did not want to have to worry about data limits. I don't download much but I'll sometimes patch WoW on the notebook computer at work, or download software patches that can be sizeable.

[Tehtsuo]

I guess companies will now always have to assume their customers will abuse whatever privileges they are allowed, and act accordingly.

"Abuse" or "Use"

Who decides that someone downloading 500gb in a month is abusing? For that matter, would it still be considered abuse a year from now? For that matter, with 25mb and 100mb lines becoming more prevalent, what do ISPs expect to be seeing? I'm sure they're hoping people will pay for a 100mb line and use it to download 5gb/month, but that's really not going to be the norm even on a 5mb line like mine.

Also, please keep legal/illegal out of the picture when you argue with me. People downloading truckloads of illegal content should be receiving a completely different letter in the mail rather than a "You're downloading too much" notice. I know a lot of gut instinct is to say "Stop downloading pr0n, pervert" but it sounds to me just like average forum troll saying "They're just levelling those characters to sell them on Ebay."

[aboron]

I'm sure most of the issues could be solved economically by just charging from a new "higher" service level where the old one theoretically was and charging an amount that makes is financially viable to have those 1% on it. Forcing out 1% of your customers can't be good word of mouth advertising, esp. if those power users probably like to brag to all their friends when their service is superior.


Personally I don't currently run any commercial services at home, nor do I use a particularly large amount of bandwidth as you can see here from my router: http://mrtg.ggxtech.net/snat.html (about 8k/sec continuous average).
But I am willing to pay for the commercial service on the off chance that static IPs and unlimited/unblocked connections might be useful to me at some time. I'd much rather have an SLA than a marketing promise any day.

[Tehtsuo]

I can't say I'm happy about the idea of charging a new price for a "higher" service level for something I'm paying a reasonable price for now, but that's just cause I'm a consumer looking for a golden goose that I can buy with a wooden nickel.

I believe the underlying problem is that companies are still using an archaic payment system where they try to "tie down" their customers with 1 and 2 year contracts. When you start doing that you lose the possibility of reducing your service level without an outcry. If customers have nothing forcing them to stay with a service provider, you can change your service as you please. It's the same thing with Cellular providers, and has resulted in a decent amount of regulation, specifically over the early-termination charges they like to try to enforce even when they try to rake consumers over the coals with plan changes.

[Bradster]

Every complaint in this thread revolving around Comcast has been dispelled by simple logic and facts by me. I like to hear myself talk. I may not listen nor care that others may not agree with my own opinion but they are foolish. For my word is law and that’s all that matters. Curse you all I’m running out of this thread for you cannot understand my superior intellect on how you all are fools! You MUST agree with me damnit! :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:

I'm so deeply hurt. I'm ignorant cause I don't agree with your point of view eh?

Fixed 8o