Slashdot Mirror
Telstra Says Freedom (Plan) Has Its Limits
"Slashdot readers in Australia will remember that Telstra's last pricing plan change was to charge per megabyte of traffic, including email and local network traffic, including paying the costs of receiving spam or unwanted data. During the rollout of optus @home's cable network, telstra implemented a flat-rate 'freedom' plan, offering a capped speed of 512kbit/128kbit with unlimited downloads suject to a flexible AUP, in order to compete with Optus's Network. Now the AUP has been changed to limit usage down to 3GB per month, reducing ADSL and cable users to the speed of a 28.8k modem.
Since the contract includes a reference to the AUP, the new limit is enforceable without express consent, and takes effect next month for all telstra 'Freedom' users. ZDNET australia, broadband.org.au, whirlpool.net.au, ausforums all have links to various stories, even a petition for Telstra to change their minds on this. As of this article, there are 4,300 users on the petition already quite angry, and more who are fed up with Telstra exploiting their monopoly of the internet bandwidth in Australia.
While some are calling this a purge of network 'abusers,' more rational users are asking for reasonable limits to be set up, if the old 'Freedom' plan cannot be reinstated."
ISP promises unlimited bandwidth, assumes that 99.9% of the customers are never going to use it, then panics when it finds itself losing money.
Bandwidth isn't free, cheap DSL connections only exist because most web users are content to spend vastly more time reading than downloading.
Anyone who uses their cheap connection to shift loads of data is costing the ISP money rather than being ripped off, therefore the ISP doesn't like it.
Sure changing terms of service to exclude anyone who actually tries to collect what they were promised is a pretty underhand thing to do, but IMHO you can expect to see a lot more of it in the future.
It's just too expensive. Have *you* ever tried to teach a monkey or bunny to shave?
:)
hawk
I must tell you, whenever the parlous state of the Australian dollar and the fact we have a moron as our leader gets us down, we just pull out a tape of Mr Irwin and realise that there's Americans out there that take him seriously. We also wonder where you lot hide your irony-removal clinics that you pass through soon after birth . .
And, if you lot are complaining about getting our junk culture, let's do a comparative list here:
Junk Culture successfully exported from Australia to America
Junk Culture successfully inflicted on Australia by the US (well, just the highlights, there's too much to list)
Now, if you want to swap, we might just have a deal :)
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"Bait-and-switch" is when, for example, a store advertises something but when you go to purchase it, they are "sold out" (because they never had it) but have plenty of a different model that is "just a little bit more money."
The software model of cheap software / expensive support has evolved because a few people need much more support than others. If you wish to subsidize other people's need for support, be my guest. I'd rather have cheaper software and fix my own problems or research the answers online. (Thanks, Google!)
Video game consoles and razors are a different, classic pricing model. It is called the "razor pricing model." A razor is two things: a sharp thing and a handle thing. The sharp thing is a precision manufactured blade designed to scrape away unwanted facial hair (which has a tensile strength comparable to copper wire of the same diameter) with out scraping away the wanted flesh underneath. The handle thing is a modified stick. Which do you think is the value-add in this product? Moreover, the blade wears out. You may view this as part of the Illuminati's conspiracy to keep hirsute men in chains. If so, you are welcome to use a straight razor and a strap. Pay up your health insurance first though.
The Gillettes and Shicks of the world give away, practically, the stick part because it is cheap in itself and it will give you an incentive to purchase their blades in the future. Eventually you will see third-party blades that fit the Mach3. And you may or may not like them.
In addition, Gillette apparently spent $750 Million doing the R&D on the blade and blade assembly. There was an interesting article on it in the New Yorker a long while back. (Sorry, I couldn't find a link on Google.) I imagine they didn't do that for fun. I use the razor and am annoyed at the high cost of the blades. But, they do seem to give me a better shave than my Atra did and the blades seem to last a bit longer as well.
In short, none of the things you mentioned are bait-and-switch. The change in DSL pricing described in the email doesn't fit classic bait and switch either. Rather, it looks like a pricing change designed to avoid having to offer the service at a loss. It is more akin to bait-and-switch then the examples in your post because it is a change in the product. But they aren't pretending the product exists at all. There is *no* all-you-can-eat DSL anymore. This may be rude or unfair or gouging, but it isn't a bait-and-switch.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
It's a time-tested technique. Software companies for the past two or three decades have offered reasonably-priced software, only to follow it with astronomically-priced support. Video game consoles are sold cheap because the games cost so much. Even toiletries: I just bought a Mach 3 razor, and realized that they could make a mint on it even if they gave it away, because the blades for it cost $armleg.99.
Got Rhinos?
I calculate even less b/w than a 28.8kbps modem
3 GB / 30 days
3072 MB / 720 hours
3145728 KByte / 43200 mins
25165824 kbit / 2592000 secs
9.7 kbps
That's just wrong.
Th
This happens a lot on the abusive country that I live (Brazil). There is a major cable ISP called Virtua that used to allow the ridiculous amount of 1 GB per month. Nowadays, they allow you 7! Gee!!
:-(
Even though Ajato really sucks sometimes, it doesn't have this sort of bullshit yet. I hear there are a few other ISPs doing the same thing Virtua is doing... I just hope mine doesn't get "infected" by this evil idea
I have been running some IP accounting software for some time now. The Telstra routers (or something behind them) keep sending out ARP requests for random IP Addresses, about 130Mb a month. Do we get credit for this NO! Swap files with mates on the Telstra network and they still charge you (or record it against your usage) and it doesn't cost them a cent! All traffic charges should be accounted for on the border of the Telstra network not internal traffic, surely?
The are absolutely no options avaiable, no alternatives, I signed up for a rate capped unlimited service! I can't believe the ACCC have said this is all OK
Sure, for the few souls that will have to decrease their traffic it sucks. But think of it again: a bigger, faster network costs money. Would it be fair to let the lightweight users pay for that, while only a few consume the bandwidth? Nah. The heavy users should think about what they want: decrease traffic or pay more. I'm sure there are options subscribe for unlimited traffic, but at higher cost. Will it be worth the extra cost, is the question these people should ask themselves. If 10 people in a city want a car that can do 200MPH, would it be fair for a car manufacturer to give all its cars this feature and increase the price? Or would it be more appropriate to sell normal cars to normal drivers and offer a sports car to those that want it?
It's easy to start yelling that Telstra sucks, but try to think what you would do if you were mr. Telstra and had to cut cost. If you really need the bandwith for downloading ISOs, movies, MP3s or whatever, you'll have to think about am I going to be fine with this, or would it be worthwhile paying more to continue this habit?
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
Take 3 GB/mo, divide by (31days/mo)*(24hrs/day)*(60min/hr)*(60sec/min) and multiply by 8 bits/byte, and you get 26882 bits/sec - on average, a little less than a v.34 modem. Could it be that ISP infrastructure is designed for 28.8 kbps, even though the technology exists through DSL to increase the peak data rate?
On a related note, most companies find that "unlimited access" to a resource that normally costs per use is a bad business strategy. In Canada, "unlimited" long distance services were recently introduced, then caps were rapidly put in place when it was realized that people would phone across the country and leave the line open all night, just because they could.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.