Slashdot Mirror
Have You Fought Your ISP Over Bandwidth Limits?
serutan asks: "Recently, a DC++-related mailing list I subscribe to has been buzzing with posts about letters from various ISPs in the U.S., UK, Australia and NZ, warning customers to curtail their download bandwidth usage to an 'acceptable' limit (generally 200 hours/month for three straight months). These are people who thought they signed up for unlimited access. Some of the letters hint that high bandwidth usage may imply illicit activity. All are vague on possible consequences, and nobody has mentioned actually being cut off by an ISP. One guy received an apology after talking to a supervisor about the meaning of the word 'unlimited.' Is this a growing trend? Have you received similar threats from an ISP? What was the outcome?" Of course, would it be so difficult for ISPs to stop advertising "unlimited" access, and instead include in the small (or not-so small) print exactly what the "acceptable" bandwidth usage is? If you did sign up for "unlimited" services and find yourself in this predicament, what have you done to get your bandwidth issues resolved?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We are 'little people'. They are big corporations. They could redefine 'unlimited' as 'up to 1GB of traffic per month', and frankly, none of us on here have a snowflake's chance in Hell of seriously combating it.
Let's not get any delusions of grandeur here. Eventually, this is going to be the Standard Operating Procedure for all ISPs. Then what are you going to do-- "vote with your wallet" by going to another ISP who'll be just as bad?
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but this is the way things are, as far as I can see.
And if you think I'm being unrealistic: Well, I can remember a time when you'd call up an ISP and actually be able to talk to a knowledgeable techie... that's obviously in the past now. And don't tell me about your wonderful local ISP. You know damned well how rare those are now.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Some of the letters hint that high bandwidth usage may imply illicit activity.
Like it or not, 90% of those people who have high bandwidth usage are using it for illicit activities.
All it takes is a few greedy P2P users to hose the business model for home broadband. The reason you pay a lot less at home than a business user for the same circuit is expected usage rates. You can argue that this is false advertising "UNLIMITED" but unlimited really means that you are not cut off after X MB download in 30 days. (or charged at $.Y per MB over X)
Due process only applies to government actions (when it's not overlooked altogether). I'm not saying it's moral, but your ISP has every right to terminate your service for any reason they want. It's in the contract, and as long as they pro-rate your monthly fee, there isn't much you can do about it.
I don't think this is a good thing. The Internet relies as much on give as take, and pushing a download-only network is a horrible concept and would hurt everybody involved in the long run.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
but your ISP has every right to terminate your service for any reason they want.
Totally correct. It is their legal right.
However, it's not a great strategy for them. Good businesses protect their customers, and assume the best. Take safety deposit boxes, rented storage space, and many other examples. They can be used for illicit activities, but such businesses do not go around snooping on their customers. They prefer to keep them.
Hopefully, technology companies will figure this out one day.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
What legitimate need does a single person have when downloading 40 gigs of data over a short period of time?
The single most obvious answer is videophone. Someone streaming the high-res output of a firewire camera can generate gigabytes of new data every hour, copyrighted only to him.
Another possible answer: He may be downloading music and movie files, and he could've paid for them. Or (more likely, today) he could be collecting hundreds of huge, public-domain movies
While it's currently true that no major legit service offers decent digital movie downloads, the ISP industry shouldn't assume it has to stay this way. If they advertise unlimited, they should try to provide it, or change the ads.
It's quite reasonable to suspect that if 40GB of data was taking place of the port Kazaa uses, that he's not transfering a family photo album or business documents from his office network.
If criminal activity is suspected, they should contact the police.
You have unlimited access at most ISPs. What you don't have is unlimited bandwidth.
This is a completely bass akward way of looking at it, which was the original poster's point.
Your line of arguing might extend to the pleding the fifth. "If he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he say anything?"
No, innocent until proven guilty means exactly that.
I don't see anyone arguing against bandwidth limits, rather that they need to be spelled out.
Examples of legitimate use might be playing online games, streaming online video, doing X over the network, etc.
Until you know *exactly* what is being done, you can't argue whether or not its legitimate (especially since you never define legitimate).
- Serge
"Get a T1 and try being an ISP yourself. You'll understand why they can't make any money if everybody is pulling a full T1 worth of bandwidth for a fraction of a T1 price very quickly."
Um right. Too bad that isn't what people are 'whine whine bitch bitch bitch cry crying' about. They're complaining (rightfully) about being promised one thing and being delivered something else. Simply put, they used the word 'unlimited' too freely.
It's about having the right expectations set, it's not about abuse of service.
"Derp de derp."
A more reasonable solution, that some ISPs are looking at is to throttle P2P traffic so that it never takes up more than say 30% of their bandwidth. They use layer 7 packet inspection from guys like P-Cube and Ellacoya .
The rationale? always-on users want to use their P2P stuff, but are not sensitive about the speeds that they get it - they'll just queue up a load of files and come back next morning.
It seems to me like the least worst approach, and is certainly better than hard caps. One benefit for the customer is Web traffic will usually still fly, even though P2P is crawling. I believe Telenor in Sweden is using this stuff.
But if I have unlimited time, what are you saying I have time with? I'm not seeing the difference here. They give me download and upload speeds at X and Y. If I have unlimited time [and obviously no control over the speed I am getting], then my bandwidth for the month would be, at worst, 30 * 24 * 60 * 60 * speed per second. So isn't it their fault for setting the speed at a level where they can't provide me with that unlimited time that you are alluding to?
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Problem solved right?
Moderators be flogged for feeding this troll!
Anyone who doesn't think they can chew up at least 20gb a month legitimately is an idiot or a luddite.
Now maybe you're the only one who uses your connection and all you do is surf Slashdot all day, but there are those of us who listen to streaming music (legit), mp3 downloads from sites like mp3.com, magnatunes.com, and others (legit), download Linux ISOs and updates (legit), Windows updates (legit), game demos (legit), PLAY games online (legit), and send high-res digital images to family members (legit).
I've done all three of those this month. Now factor in my two geek roommates and we go through upwards of 5gbytes in a 4-day period. I've seen my usage spike as high as 72gbytes in a 30-day period.
All that without servers, work files, porn, or copyright infringement. Good thing you don't work at my ISP.
The reason ISP's use the word "unlimited" in their advertisements is because it sells more accounts than if they don't.
The fact that they are lying is really not a relevant point. Consumers will flock to the guy that says "unlimited" in his advertisements regardless if it's the truth or not. Consumers don't think that hard about the issue.
It should be obvious that you can't provide a dedicated "unlimited" 56K connection profitably at the $10-$15/mo market rate, but you will sell a lot more accounts if you say "unlimited".
This is also true in the web hosting business. I see advertisements for "Unlimited Bandwitdh" web hosting all the time. But we all know that this is neither physically possible nor economically possible. Still people sign up for these lies.
Guys like me that run businesses that want to be honest about things are punished for our truthfullness. Consumers demand to be lied to. So ISP's are forced to choose between significantly lower sales and being dishonest.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't ISPs that try to be honest in their offerings. I could give you a list of honest ones that don't use the word unlimited unless they mean it. All I'm saying is that dialup consumers do not typicaly choose these honest guys when they see an "unlimited" offer for the same price.
I work for an ISP and we had to change our "unlimited" dial-up option to "unmetered" to stop people from being online 24x7 all month.
We don't bandwidth limit our DSL customers, but with the cost of bandwidth being what it is it may be something we have to look at. Currently less than 1% of our customers use 75% of our bandwidth.
It's NOT in our best interest for "Mr. Bandwidth Hog" to pay the same amount as "Grandma Smith" who only checks her email once a day.
Look, I respect your right to run your business as you please, and I feel your pain w/r/t internet fees, but damnit there are some of us who DO expect to be able to have our computers connected to the net 24/7 and we DO want to download mass quantities of software/pr0n/whatever. When an ISP offers broadband specifically advertising these as the benefits that is what we expect. IT is bullshit to sell a service and then get mad when people actually use it!
That said, perhaps we should make a geek ISP that fixes these problems, perhaps by charging more and then letting people do what they actually want to do with the access. Oh wait.. can't be a broadband ISP unless you are part of the trust. Oh wait, the ISPs already claim to offer this and proudly charge you more then start threatening you when you try and use the service. Grrrrr....
Aha!
However they advertise it as unlimited don't they?
Well unlimited is just that. If they go around calling their service unlimited, and I siugn up for it, it damned well better be unlimited or else no matter what their clauses say... thats false advertising. Plain and simple.
They can try all they want to tell you otherwise, but if they told you unlimited before you sgned up, and havn't sent you a notice saying the unlimited plan has been cancelled and you are being moved to some other plan, then I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Of course when an ISP tried to pull this shit on me about 8 years ago, I just voted with my dollars. I said goodbye Ziplink, not so nice knowing you, and found a better ISP.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yes, those are called limits and I believe an unlimited connection doesn't have them.
Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
unlimited - adj 1: lacking any controls 2: BOUNDLESS, INFINTE 3: not bounded by exceptions.
Hmmm... I'm looking at a recent ad copy for high speed access from Comcast that says "unlimited" and provides no alternative defintion.
Guess we cleared that up pretty easily. If they say unlimited, they better damn well mean that I have infinite, boundless bandwidth. They better mean that if I want to 5000 copies of the latest Red Hat distro queued and let it download for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year I can do that.
If they want to cap downloads to prevent obnoxious abuse like that, that's fine. However, when they're still advertising "unlimited" access knowing full well they have no intention of providing that service there's a problem. It's not really that complicated of a concept, the whole truthful advertising thing.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am *QUITE* familiar with 'caveat emptor' ...
But, then again, I'm also aware of "false advertising," "deceptive trade practices," "fraud" and a few other terms that broadband ISPs don't want to talk about.
As an earlier poster said, "If they say 'unlimited' they damn well better MEAN "infinite, limitless bandwidth" unless they want to run afoul of some VERY nasty consumer protection laws.
Just my $0.02 ( & BTW, IAAL)
utter rubbish
You ever hear of buyer beware? You didn't read the AUP did you?
IRRELEVANT.
Comcast is, in this current, valid offering which I am currently holding in my left hand saying - quite explicitly, mind you - that I can get "Unlimited Internet Access" by signing up for their cable service. The TOS/AUP/POS/whatever is NOT printed OR referenced ANYWHERE on this advertisement. NO alternative definition for "unlimited" is provided that says they mean anything other than the dictionary term.
The advertisement is, quite obviously, advertising a service THEY DO NOT SELL.
If it's that easy, can I start selling shale through the mail as gold and claim in my convoluted, small print TOS that "gold" really means a "a brittle, grayish-brown stone"? Does my TOS vindicate my false advertising? I think not. That's exactly what Comcast is trying to do here.
They want to cap people? Fine. Then stop advertising something completely different that you're not selling and never have. That's all I ask. Advertise your product or service, don't try to hide your deceptive ads (which are actually flat-out lies) behind convoluted terms and pretend that that justifies your fairy tale advertising.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Streaming audio, streaming video, OS patches, umpteen programming applications, remote backups, distributed computing, perfectly legal P2P applications...this is the short list.
Oh, yeah, and another thing: who the hell are you to define what's legitimate? Whether I'm downloading pornography, telecommuting, or watching reruns of 'What's Happening Now?' from a server in New Guinea, it doesn't matter. If I'm not violating my TOS, and I'm simply using my 'unlimited' connection, then I'm not doing anything wrong.
I'll call a spade a spade: certain broadband providers are screwing a subset of their customers, because they can, and relying on 'common sense' from non-techies to justify their actions. I understand their business justifications (hey, I'm a businessman), but their tactics suck, and it will bite them square in the ass someday.
If you are willing to claim unlimited, be prepared to put your money where your mouth is. If not, don't make the claim. Unlimited means just that, no limits, no qualifications. You can't afford to offer that at your price range? Then don't offer it. You can make other claims such as no preset limit or so on. However if you want to say there is no limit, be prepared for people to use that.
I do with my ISP. I expect that my connection be on 24x7 barring problems. I expect to be able to use all the bandwidth they choose to give me as often as I like adn not hear about it. I put a heavy load on that line too, what with three servers, two roomates and lots of personal use. They don't complain, their pricing is such that they can sustain that.
It is the ISPs that need to get over it, with it being the concept taht you have the right to advertise something and not give it. ISPs want the allure of being "unlimited" but not the associated costs. Too bad. Either be unlimited, and don't whine about it (my dialup ISP never bothered me if I left the modem on for a week straight, which I did) or don't advertise as such. Isntead of unlimited say no time restrictions and no preset limits.
Notice that American Express does NOT claim they give you an unlimited spending amount. They say they have "no pre-set spending limit". That means that, unlike other cards where you have a hard cap as to what you can charge, they have no default cap in place. Doesn't mean they'll let you charge anything you want. They couldn't do that or someone would get one, charge $50 million in shit and skip the country. However, it would be dishonest to claim otherwise.
Finally, I would not that DirectPC got sued over this and lost.
While your post was informative, you failed to address the issue of 'don't offer unlimited if you can't deliver'. What the vast majority of slashdotters are upset about is the fact that this is false advertising. Personally, we could give two flying fucks whether or not the ISP can handle the constant usage. Our beef is with the fact that we are paying for a service that is not giving us what was advertised.
"As an ISP, I'd prefer to be able to use my discretion in this situation rather than hear the "told you so" of users crying about "lax enforcement of rule".
As an ISP's customer, I'd prefer to be able to know EXACTLY what my limits were, so that I can use the service to its full potential. I do not want my ISP deciding that since Johnny is doing work for a school project, he can use more bandwidth, but since I'm looking at pr0n I can't.
I do not want my ISP deciding whether or not what I use the internet for is 'acceptable' or not. If I am paying the same amount as Johnny who is doing a school project, I DEMAND equal service. Now, whether I choose to use that service or not is my decision, as it is Johnny's as well, but I do NOT want to be treated differently if I use the service to its fully advertised potential.
Got a problem with that? Perhaps the ISP should then do some legal research into the Truth in Advertising laws. I have no pity for any company who's falty business plan revolves around 'expectations of usage' of its customers. Not my fault your business plan can't make you money, and I will not suffer because of it.
Now, I apologize if this post seemed like a bit of a rant. It was a rant though. While I can sympathize with you in your position, realize that customers should not be feeling sorry for companies. That is the way business works.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
It is reasonable for them to assume that there words will be taken in a reasonable manner.
Yea, that's why when I see "unlimited" I think it means "unlimited" not "unlimited unless it becomes inconvenient for us". If they don't mean unlimited, they need to say something like "150 hours a month for $49.95" or whatever the actual service is. 150 hours or some mysterious, unknown limit is NOT unlimited, plain and simple.
But let's not take "Unlimited" to mean something unreasonable.
I REALLY don't understand where you're coming from or why you think anyone is going to buy this argument. You're arguing this point on quicksand and you're already in up to your neck. Look, whether you're going to admit it or not, unlimited has a clearly defined meaning. It's not ambiguous. They're not saying "lots of access" or "a whole bunch of access", they're saying "unlimited access". Unlimited is a very clearly defined, well understood term. How could I apply an unreasonable meaning to it? Unlimited is unlimited. No limit. None. Zip, nada, zilch. NO LIMIT TO ACCESS.
Would you assume 'unlimited internet access' means I have unlimited access to whitehouse.gov and could change it to fit my needs?
Completely pointless and offtopic. You're arguing the meaning of access, not unlimited. Access to the Internet does not automatically grant write privilege to a small portion of the WWW which is only part of the Internet. When they say "access", it's generally understood that they're talking about the ability to connect to their server in order to use the Internet in some capacity. How you use the Internet is not guaranteed by them in any way.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!