Actually if at any point during the 15 minutes you got that "up to" speed, then you did get "up to" that speed, brief though the encounter may have been.
Last month I watched Hulu or Netflix about five hours a day (on weekdays), more on weekends. (That's right, I have no life.)
Playing Champions Online or anything Source-based, combined with streaming Hulu or Netflix, results in an average network download speed of around 300kbps.
In other words, the 250GB cap doesn't bother even avid online video watchers like myself. Streaming video doesn't put you anywhere near 800kbps.
But even if it did put you at 800kbps, you'd have to do that 24/7 to hit the cap. The vast majority of subscribers are incapable of sustaining that much online activity;) It's only a small number of basement-dwelling slashdotters who voraciously download large quantities of online media that are actually in danger of approaching the 250GB limit.
(I hope nobody takes that the wrong way. I'd consider myself a basement-dwelling slashdotter, but I don't have a basement.)
It certainly can be a staple of life, if you're running an internet-based business from home. And no, a T1 isn't always an option either.
They do have a monopoly on high-speed internet access, which can be a requirement for some internet-based businesses. Or are you going to tell your clients "Yeah, I'll send you the video file I just finished, but it'll take five days to upload, because I'm boycotting Comcast"? You could say that, but unless your video files brainwash viewers into worshiping you, you're going to lose your clients rather quickly.
And no, even a "business"-grade Comcast account isn't really any better than a "consumer"-grade Comcast account. If I were to upgrade my consumer account to a business account today, they wouldn't have to do anything special - just change my account's bandwidth cap, maybe raise my max speed, and shut off the "we don't let people run servers on their connections" detection stuff. They wouldn't even need to send out an installer. (Point being: it's the same crappy service, just slightly less crappy.)
Your comparison would be better if you compared Comcast's advertised speed with a land speed, rather than a distance. The distinction is important.
To clarify: Comcast advertises a 250GB download cap. That's somewhat akin to your 200,000 mile distance limit.
Comcast advertises "up to" 12Mbps. That's like advertising a car that can travel "up to" 200mph. Is anyone going to manage to get the car to go that fast? Doubtful. But in either case, you haven't lied - in the right circumstances, the car could conceivably travel that fast, and under the right circumstances Comcast might give you 12Mbps for a brief time.
Replace "AT&T" with "Qwest" and that's my situation exactly (except I didn't sign up for Qwest DSL first). I'm getting tired of seeing FiOS ads, because not only does Verizon have no plans for rolling out FiOS in my area anytime soon, my address isn't even in their system, so they can't record my request.
* they advertise how customers will need to do nothing for the digital conversion. then we get boxes
... my old analog TV still works with Comcast basic cable, and we don't have any Comcast equipment at all in the house.
i've switched to verizon fios and so far i like it better, plus it's a few bucks cheaper. hoepfully i'll continue to liek it
Having trouble with that "e" key, eh?;) Seriously though, I'm jealous. I wish Verizon were required to offer the service everywhere they advertise it; I'd sign up without hesitation.
My point-to-point DSL, meanwhile, is rock-steady and consistent. I think I made the right choice there.
Me too - and I would have done the same, if anyone offered DSL faster than 1.5Mbps in my area. The only way I could get a faster connection was Comcast.:(
The contracts aren't the problem. Comcast knows that most people don't read them, so their salespeople blatantly lie about what kind of service prospective customers will receive - and then if the customers complain, they can just say "you should have read the contract".
They're technically right - the customer should have read the contract - but they're still complete jerks for acting that way.
They want real beef, but they won't pay for it. Yet another "I'm special and my needs are more important than you!" article.
On the contrary - people are more than willing to pay for quality service, but companies aren't in the mood to provide it. (Remember the recent stories about towns which have set up their own fiber networks after their local ISP flat-out refused to do so.)
For example, I know a lot of people that would pay for FiOS if it were available (I'm one of them). For whatever reason, Verizon is dragging its feet when it comes to actually deploying FiOS - despite a massive ad campaign for the service. This doesn't make sense. The market is obviously there - they should be taking advantage of it.
The fact is that the bandwidth's can be greatly increased, but at great cost to comcast itself.
As a Comcast customer, I would be more than willing to subsidize their cost to upgrade their network - or even cover my portion of the cost entirely - if it meant they'd give me a faster connection as a result.
I believe the commonly quoted figure is that it would cost Comcast $6 per customer. I'd be willing to pay two or three times that much as a one-time fee to get the network upgraded - and I'm willing to bet that most other Comcast customers feel the same way.
All they have to do is make it opt-in. Charge a $20 one-time fee to anyone who is willing. Once the network is upgraded, double the speeds of all customers who contributed (without raising their bill, of course). If enough of their customers do it, then Comcast could make a profit off of the upgrade.
Some of us download games we have purchased online (via Steam, GoG, Greenhouse, Impulse, Direct2Drive, etc etc etc etc). Some of us buy a lot of games.
If I've paid Comcast for a 12Mbps connection, then throttling me for downloading something I've legitimately purchased is not going to make me happy. Some games are multiple gigabytes; the sooner they let me finish my download, the sooner their network will be less congested.
Instead of spending tons of money researching throttling solutions, why don't they just spend $6 per customer upgrading their network? Problem solved. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that virtually every Comcast customer would be willing to pay a $6 one-time fee if it meant their speeds would double - resulting in Comcast getting a zero-cost upgrade while being able to advertise higher speeds than they currently advertise.
Not happy with the options with your local ISPs? Start your own!
That's probably one of the stupidest things you can say in this sort of situation, right up there with "not happy with the bugs in $OPEN_SOURCE_PROGRAM? fix them yourself!"
Most of us aren't businesspeople. Most of us do not have the money or time to start an ISP. And yet most of us American slashdotters are not happy with our ISPs.
It's not a choice between "use Comcast or start your own ISP". It's a choice between "use Comcast and keep your job, or quit your job, take out a large loan, and start an ISP." Notice the part in there about a job? Most of us need our jobs, or we don't eat.
There's nothing wrong with the DMCA itself - it's the lack of enforcement with respect to its false claims penalties that is the problem.
As long as those aren't enforced, we'd be better off if we scrapped the DMCA entirely.
There's also the problem where YouTube couldn't effectively defend the rights of its users even if it wanted to, because that would be cost-prohibitive. It has to choose to either blindly obey any and all takedown notices, or investigate every single one. This isn't unique to YouTube.
Well... Verizon's own maps don't agree with you. (Check out the wireless coverage maps, 2G vs 3G, on verizonwireless.com if you don't believe me.) What I mean is, Verizon does cover some areas with 2G that they do not cover with 3G.
I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen.
I hate to defend those commercials, but... they all say "with diet and exercise" as an addendum to all of their weight loss claims, and most of them say "not FDA approved" in the fine print.
Sure, what they're selling is little more than a vitamin pill, but it's not technically false advertising if you remember "with diet and exercise".
This happens to my wife and me all the time. We have the same model phone, and sometimes in our apartment we'll have them right next to each other on a table; one will show full signal strength, one will show one bar (or none).
Indeed. People sometimes get confused when I give them my cell phone number; it's a Utah area code, but I live in Washington. Sure, it's long distance for local land-lines to call me (but not long-distance for land lines two states away to call me), but nobody with a cell phone really cares either way.
That doesn't mean they can make a treaty that's inherently unconstitutional (e.g. right to due process, protection against unlawful search and seizure, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually if at any point during the 15 minutes you got that "up to" speed, then you did get "up to" that speed, brief though the encounter may have been.
Last month I watched Hulu or Netflix about five hours a day (on weekdays), more on weekends. (That's right, I have no life.)
Playing Champions Online or anything Source-based, combined with streaming Hulu or Netflix, results in an average network download speed of around 300kbps.
In other words, the 250GB cap doesn't bother even avid online video watchers like myself. Streaming video doesn't put you anywhere near 800kbps.
But even if it did put you at 800kbps, you'd have to do that 24/7 to hit the cap. The vast majority of subscribers are incapable of sustaining that much online activity ;) It's only a small number of basement-dwelling slashdotters who voraciously download large quantities of online media that are actually in danger of approaching the 250GB limit.
(I hope nobody takes that the wrong way. I'd consider myself a basement-dwelling slashdotter, but I don't have a basement.)
It certainly can be a staple of life, if you're running an internet-based business from home. And no, a T1 isn't always an option either.
They do have a monopoly on high-speed internet access, which can be a requirement for some internet-based businesses. Or are you going to tell your clients "Yeah, I'll send you the video file I just finished, but it'll take five days to upload, because I'm boycotting Comcast"? You could say that, but unless your video files brainwash viewers into worshiping you, you're going to lose your clients rather quickly.
And no, even a "business"-grade Comcast account isn't really any better than a "consumer"-grade Comcast account. If I were to upgrade my consumer account to a business account today, they wouldn't have to do anything special - just change my account's bandwidth cap, maybe raise my max speed, and shut off the "we don't let people run servers on their connections" detection stuff. They wouldn't even need to send out an installer. (Point being: it's the same crappy service, just slightly less crappy.)
Your comparison would be better if you compared Comcast's advertised speed with a land speed, rather than a distance. The distinction is important.
To clarify: Comcast advertises a 250GB download cap. That's somewhat akin to your 200,000 mile distance limit.
Comcast advertises "up to" 12Mbps. That's like advertising a car that can travel "up to" 200mph. Is anyone going to manage to get the car to go that fast? Doubtful. But in either case, you haven't lied - in the right circumstances, the car could conceivably travel that fast, and under the right circumstances Comcast might give you 12Mbps for a brief time.
Replace "AT&T" with "Qwest" and that's my situation exactly (except I didn't sign up for Qwest DSL first). I'm getting tired of seeing FiOS ads, because not only does Verizon have no plans for rolling out FiOS in my area anytime soon, my address isn't even in their system, so they can't record my request.
I'm no Comcast-lover, but...
* they advertise how customers will need to do nothing for the digital conversion. then we get boxes
... my old analog TV still works with Comcast basic cable, and we don't have any Comcast equipment at all in the house.
i've switched to verizon fios and so far i like it better, plus it's a few bucks cheaper. hoepfully i'll continue to liek it
Having trouble with that "e" key, eh? ;) Seriously though, I'm jealous. I wish Verizon were required to offer the service everywhere they advertise it; I'd sign up without hesitation.
My point-to-point DSL, meanwhile, is rock-steady and consistent. I think I made the right choice there.
Me too - and I would have done the same, if anyone offered DSL faster than 1.5Mbps in my area. The only way I could get a faster connection was Comcast. :(
The contracts aren't the problem. Comcast knows that most people don't read them, so their salespeople blatantly lie about what kind of service prospective customers will receive - and then if the customers complain, they can just say "you should have read the contract".
They're technically right - the customer should have read the contract - but they're still complete jerks for acting that way.
They want real beef, but they won't pay for it. Yet another "I'm special and my needs are more important than you!" article.
On the contrary - people are more than willing to pay for quality service, but companies aren't in the mood to provide it. (Remember the recent stories about towns which have set up their own fiber networks after their local ISP flat-out refused to do so.)
For example, I know a lot of people that would pay for FiOS if it were available (I'm one of them). For whatever reason, Verizon is dragging its feet when it comes to actually deploying FiOS - despite a massive ad campaign for the service. This doesn't make sense. The market is obviously there - they should be taking advantage of it.
The fact is that the bandwidth's can be greatly increased, but at great cost to comcast itself.
As a Comcast customer, I would be more than willing to subsidize their cost to upgrade their network - or even cover my portion of the cost entirely - if it meant they'd give me a faster connection as a result.
I believe the commonly quoted figure is that it would cost Comcast $6 per customer. I'd be willing to pay two or three times that much as a one-time fee to get the network upgraded - and I'm willing to bet that most other Comcast customers feel the same way.
All they have to do is make it opt-in. Charge a $20 one-time fee to anyone who is willing. Once the network is upgraded, double the speeds of all customers who contributed (without raising their bill, of course). If enough of their customers do it, then Comcast could make a profit off of the upgrade.
Some of us download games we have purchased online (via Steam, GoG, Greenhouse, Impulse, Direct2Drive, etc etc etc etc). Some of us buy a lot of games.
If I've paid Comcast for a 12Mbps connection, then throttling me for downloading something I've legitimately purchased is not going to make me happy. Some games are multiple gigabytes; the sooner they let me finish my download, the sooner their network will be less congested.
Instead of spending tons of money researching throttling solutions, why don't they just spend $6 per customer upgrading their network? Problem solved. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that virtually every Comcast customer would be willing to pay a $6 one-time fee if it meant their speeds would double - resulting in Comcast getting a zero-cost upgrade while being able to advertise higher speeds than they currently advertise.
Not happy with the options with your local ISPs? Start your own!
That's probably one of the stupidest things you can say in this sort of situation, right up there with "not happy with the bugs in $OPEN_SOURCE_PROGRAM? fix them yourself!"
Most of us aren't businesspeople. Most of us do not have the money or time to start an ISP. And yet most of us American slashdotters are not happy with our ISPs.
It's not a choice between "use Comcast or start your own ISP". It's a choice between "use Comcast and keep your job, or quit your job, take out a large loan, and start an ISP." Notice the part in there about a job? Most of us need our jobs, or we don't eat.
There's nothing wrong with the DMCA itself - it's the lack of enforcement with respect to its false claims penalties that is the problem.
As long as those aren't enforced, we'd be better off if we scrapped the DMCA entirely.
There's also the problem where YouTube couldn't effectively defend the rights of its users even if it wanted to, because that would be cost-prohibitive. It has to choose to either blindly obey any and all takedown notices, or investigate every single one. This isn't unique to YouTube.
So what happens if the Constitution becomes self-contradictory?
Well... Verizon's own maps don't agree with you. (Check out the wireless coverage maps, 2G vs 3G, on verizonwireless.com if you don't believe me.) What I mean is, Verizon does cover some areas with 2G that they do not cover with 3G.
Already been done.
I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen.
I hate to defend those commercials, but... they all say "with diet and exercise" as an addendum to all of their weight loss claims, and most of them say "not FDA approved" in the fine print.
Sure, what they're selling is little more than a vitamin pill, but it's not technically false advertising if you remember "with diet and exercise".
Verizon's depiction of AT&T's 3G coverage is accurate, if you go by the information available on AT&T's website.
(I posted this here a few minutes ago.)
I dunno... according to this map, they really are comparing 3G to 3G.
My exploration of AT&T's site seems to corroborate Verizon's map.
False advertising isn't just about what is said, it's about what is implied.
This happens to my wife and me all the time. We have the same model phone, and sometimes in our apartment we'll have them right next to each other on a table; one will show full signal strength, one will show one bar (or none).
Lots of fun.
Indeed. People sometimes get confused when I give them my cell phone number; it's a Utah area code, but I live in Washington. Sure, it's long distance for local land-lines to call me (but not long-distance for land lines two states away to call me), but nobody with a cell phone really cares either way.
... or they'd just increase everyone's bill to cover the new expenses.
That doesn't mean they can make a treaty that's inherently unconstitutional (e.g. right to due process, protection against unlawful search and seizure, etc).
Didn't work that time, either :P