soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| Whine and Complain
I know some people will whine and complain but this offer is more than fair, especially for the price. RR even went the extra mile of detailing for some of you who like to Knitpick. The usage they gave is well with reason. I don't wanna hear stupid complaints about pop ups and spam, they get no where near 40 gigs a month. |
|
BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
 ·Bell Sympatico
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Um... well I'm jealous of the 40gb download caps 
My ISP offers 20GB combined and $7.95/GB. They won't charge more than $30 for bandwidth usage.
Card profile (DSL) is 3488/800
Almost similar.. wish we had more bandwidth though
--
[Join Team Discovery!]
#SympaticoSucks on EFnet for all your Sympatico Rants |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to soothsayer15
said by soothsayer15  :
I don't wanna hear stupid complaints about pop ups and spam, they get no where near 40 gigs a month.
ok mom. thanks for telling us what we can and can't post.
--
We'll be incredibly lucky to make it out of this decade without an attack that dwarfs 9/11 due to the current U.S. led war. |
|
soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| Everyone has the right to post, but everytime something about bandwidth usage comes some says something idiotic like, "Well if they gonna put bandwidth caps on me they better stop me from receiveing pop ups." or my favorite "Then they better stop spam from coming to my mail box." PopUp ads are annoying but they're not bandwidth killers unless you're real heavy into porn pop up pages. And ask for spam unless you just download all your spam it's a non issue. Some people try to make something from nothing. |
|
GTaylor
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Frisco, TX
clubs: | reply to soothsayer15
Isn't this the same ISP thats considered "Very spam friendly"?
Glad to see where their priorities are. |
|
murdok6100
Avatar. Get It, Avatar?
join:2002-06-20
| reply to soothsayer15
said by soothsayer15 :
Everyone has the right to post, but everytime something about bandwidth usage comes some says something idiotic like, "Well if they gonna put bandwidth caps on me they better stop me from receiveing pop ups." or my favorite "Then they better stop spam from coming to my mail box." PopUp ads are annoying but they're not bandwidth killers unless you're real heavy into porn pop up pages. And ask for spam unless you just download all your spam it's a non issue. Some people try to make something from nothing.
While I agree that this offer is more than reasonable, I still have to say that what it all boils down to is that people will pay to receive spam.
It may only be in the fractions of a cent, but the idea of paying for something one hates is unsettling, no matter how minute it may seem.
At least thats why I think people have the 'OL "Then they better stop spam from coming to my mail box." attitude.
I don't share that view, but I could "possibly" see where some folks are coming from.
murdok610 |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | reply to soothsayer15
Fine, you have you point.
But, what about a lower tier for those who don't use it as much such as Joe Email and Sally Spreadsheet? |
|
GTaylor
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| Joe E-mail and Sally Spreadsheet do have a lower tier. It's called dial-up.
What this boils down to is what's RR's angle: To remove users who use far too much bandwidth? Or a PR attempt to shame high-bandwidth users in an attempt to restrict access, thereby increasing profits.
Myself, I'd exceed the 15 gig (But not Cox's 30 gig) policy, but I still remember the Bells pulling a similiar stunt in 1997 by restricting the hours on-line per month at 150, hence why I find this trend very disturbing. |
|
wdoerr
join:2001-04-20
Chicago, IL | reply to soothsayer15
Am I allowed to complain about packet retransmits?
If I'm getting 30% - 50% retransmits, should I be paying additional fees?
I don't think so.
--
wdoerr |
|
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Elk Grove, CA
| reply to soothsayer15
Re: Whine and Complain
The only thing that annoys me at this point is that if I pay more for the higher tier, I should expect unlimited transfer.
I have no problems paying for tiered service, I actually encourage it, I would much rather have my sister pay 19.95 for her broadband connection since she only checks her mail and views some trailers online, while I would gladly pay 79.95 for my bandwidth hogging, movie, mp3 and emulation downloading ass, but with the understanding that I don't have any download caps (or at least a little more realistic ones).
In the end of the month, the ISP will still makes their $50/month average for user. The only potential issue I see with this is that not everyone will play/play fair. |
|
malium
join:2003-01-21
Kernersville, NC
| reply to soothsayer15
A more relevant point mentioned elsewhere in a related thread though makes note of the constant scanning and probing of cable modem IPs by folks looking to abuse these, viruses, etc. A few years ago data lights on cable modes didn't blink constantly if you weren't active online, now they do - and this is surely being measured too.
The things that bother me about this are - one, RoadRunner does not price evenly across the US to all affiliates, it's set on a local level, so some places you get more or less bandwidth, pay more or less a month, or get more than one IP in a basic account. My letter said $15 for each 5 gigs over 15, and the 40 gig account was $99 not $79. Yes, it's a reasonable service, but if you are going to penalize people you should offer tools so they can monitor usage.
Also, as for bitching, who are you or anyone else to tell me what is reasonable? What was reasonable 4 years ago when I worked at RoadRunner is different now that AOL is pushing broadband content, now that movies are available online from legit sources, now that music can be downloaded legally from many sources. Remember that quote from Bill Gates about 64K being all a PC would ever need? My first PC had a 10 MEG hard drive. It's ironic that AOL wants to push more content to us but their company TWC wants to charge more if you use it. Hmmm. Guess you'll have to watch those movies on demand on digital cable instead. This isn't about abuse, it's about profit and tiered billing structures - the letter was a clear intimidation to get me to pay more or force me to a business class account. Or to moderate my internet usage.
Think banks and the way they nickel and dime you, making hundreds a year off the average account that lets them earn interest on your money. Think of the phone company billing by the minute or billing more to call 40 miles from here and it does for me to call Europe. People have every right to bitch and whine about a contract suddenly being changed on them. Imagine if your unlimited cell phone minutes suddenly changed to 100 minutes a month next month and charged you $1 a minute over that. A problem is that cable companies have virtual monopolies in most markets - you can't go elsewhere, and DSL isn't universally available to all locations served by cable. This is why the same company can and does price differently in different markets - and worse, the pricing is also often driven by collusion with your local city, town or county by franchise agreements with cable companies - guaranteeing them exclusive access to you as a customer, and your government probably skims profits (taxes or otherwise) off the price too. But with cable modems most of it falls outside the TV franchise deals and is pure profit for the cable company - the modem is paid off in a few months and the investments in the infrastructure are probably written off at a corporate level.
Yes, I've downloaded excessively, but until recent announcements the account was stated as unlimited internet access and now I'm told I can only use 1/10th of the level of service I used last month or pay extreme fines for extra traffic. It reminds me of the early web hosting models that made some ISPs rich off porn hosting when stolen passwords would skyrocket the gigs of traffic into thousands of dollars of excess hosting traffic and drive the sites out of business.
I'd be very curious what level of traffic would show on a test modem only connected to a PC with no traffic, but probed constantly as RoadRunner IP addresses are. Probably not over 15 gigs, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was gigs of unsolicited traffic a month.
Personally the letter was enough to make me quit RoadRunner and return the modem. AOL assured me there were no limits there even though it's on the same Time Warner pipes and my new modem came with no TOS from TWC. So I don't think the same as Earthlink users being bound by TWC matters on AOL, and I'm still waiting to hear if anyone on Earthlink got one of these letters from TWC. But the AOL client seems to need to be running on any PC to get online, even behind a router, which is annoying. I'd like to get a definitive answer as to whether TWC is threatening Earthlink users with the same fees, and whether Earthlink uses or requires a proprietary client and can work effective with a home LAN and router without custom software on each PC always logged in. |
|
