Slashdot Mirror
'Throttling' Broadband Provider Sued In Australia
destinyland writes "Optus has been severely throttling users who exceed a download quota, according to ZDNet — down from 100Mbps to 64Kbps — and it's drawn attention from federal regulators. Optus's ad campaign promises 'supersonic' speeds, and one technology blog notes that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 'isn't happy about Optus' sensationalist claims, which it's sure breaches the Trade Practices Act.' Australia's trade commission called the practice 'misleading or deceptive,' and the broadband provider now has a date in court next month, the second one since a June hearing over 'unlimited' voice and data plans that actually had usage caps."
Yeah that means "unlimited time". It used to be, back in the 90s, you were only given 100 hours (approximately) per month. Even today some providers like Netzero only give you 10 hours.
So unlimited time is a nice benefit, and should not be held against the Aussie ISP. Especially when they TELL you exactly 200 GB.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Alright I looked it up. "Unlimited downloads" is what the fine print says. The other plans only let you have a fixed number of downloads during primetime.
I guess it's similar to how cellphones only let you have XX minutes during primetime, unless you specifically buy an "unlimited minutes" plan.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The problem is that all of our connections use a Telstra backend (well, nearly *all* of them). Telstra needs to be absolutely hammered into the ground and everything taken away from them and given back to public domain and control. Let's consider the ABN - the government gave a closing date for tenders for the ABN. Telstra gave the government the finger and didn't submit a tender by the closing date because it had a hissy fit that it didn't get preferential treatment. Now what should have happened is that the government said tough shit, you miss out Telstra, too late. That's what happens in *business*. Of course, the government did a backflip and allowed Telstra to submit a highly biased tender after the closing date I might add. Worse, the government has happily accepted this plan of the ABN, to basically update Telstra's infrastructure, at public cost. WTF? Let Telstra pay for the fucking upgrades, it's supposedly their network. It really isn't, not when you look at the actual law, and even that legislation is highly suspicious if you do enough research on the matter (in the words of AC/DC - dirty deeds done dirt cheap). The other competitors need to band together and sue the government for providing legislation that gives Telstra a monopoly. For those in the US, think of AT&T in the 70s and then triple it. That's how *bad* Telstra's monopoly is.
I've heard of substantiated reports where an ISP (using Telstra infrastructure) has not been able to provide a DSL service due to some problems with the PSTN infrastructure provided by Telstra I might add (DSL application rejected). Said person then applied for DSL with Telstra's Bigpond directly and got DSL without *any* issues, using the very same infrastructure. WTF? Of course, this person was a smart cookie and used the 30 day cooling off period to churn back to his preferred ISP.
I myself have had issues - DSL2+ service which whilst not always totally stable, worked well enough for over 2 years. Around 5 months ago, it started becoming very unstable, with drops every 5 minutes. An isolation test, replacement of modem etc did nothing to alleviate the issue. The issue became worse in colder or wet conditions too. Here's the deal - my wholesaler (AAPT powertel) has an agreement with Telstra on a wholesale level for what it calls "spectrum share" services. These are DSL services provided on Telstra PSTNs, but the DSL service is not provided by Telstra, but by a 3rd party using Telstra's infrastructure. This agreement stipulates that the 3rd party will NOT ask Telstra to check the line for DSL faults. Now, in my own personal case, as our PSTN is with Telstra (as is most peoples'), all I could do was to have Telstra come out for a line (voice) fault. They will not test for DSL faults as the DSL service is not with them. My wholesaler will only check to see if the service is in sync, not radius drop times etc, but nothing else, not even an OATS/RVOP test etc as its beyond their ability. They will not get Telstra to do a DSL test on the line. So, I'm stuck with a shit service, that neither my wholesaler, or Telstra will fix. Piggy in the middle. And there's jack shit that I can do about it, since minimum service agreements are 1.5mb for a DSL 2+ service (which it just barely meets). I can't make my wholesaler fix the issue, and I can't make Telstra fix the issue. Where's my rights as a consumer? If there was any other industry, the players in the game would be in deep consumer shit.
Oh, and the Internet ombudsman is a total joke. ISPs can't complain against other ISPs or wholesalers. End users can only complain against their ISP, and not the wholesaler, even when their ISP is not at fault and it's a wholesaler issue. Does that sound right? No. It's utterly borked and utterly useless. I did formally complain against my ISP, but all it did was mean that pressure was placed on my job to withdraw the complaint (I actually work for my ISP). My ISPs/employer's view was "go use Optus cable then'. Not good service at all.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.