Hehehehe I had a very similar problem in Australia with Telstra's cable service - all I wanted to know was the name of the mail server - 5 days later, they did in fact send me an email with the name I needed; I don't know why I had to spend an hour on the phone then wait 5 days for someone who actually *knew* to get back to me though...
This could be a little off-topic, but I'd just like to describe the situation we are currently facing in Australia. Things are very bad here. (In regards to cable internet access, that is... i will avoid commenting on any thing else!)
By the way, I'm not in any way trying to say that just because things are worse here that you guys shouldn't be complaining - I think you should, loud and clear, and I'd just like to give you a little cautionary tale about how bad things can get with large monopolies in the telecommunications industry.
The two suppliers of cable internet in Australia are Telstra and Optus. They do not however directly compete as they are available in different areas, so in a sense they each have their own monopoly.
Telstra, who operate in my area, have just retro-actively introduced a download limit of 3 gig per month (including both up and downstream data). This service was advertised as "unlimited", subject to the provisions of the "Acceptable Use Policy" (AUP), however after a year or so they have added clauses to the AUP instigating the 3 gig limit. They claim that the current levels of usage are "degrading network performance", ie they are blaming their users for their own incompetancy.
I don't know why they signed up so many users if they are unable to provide the services advertised. Obviously a fairly extreme miscalculation!
On the other hand, the most likely thing is that they are actually deliberately throttling supply in order to squeeze every last miserable cent out of early-adopters. (after the three hig limit is reached, you then pay 19 cents per meg ( around US 9 or 10 cents) for every megabyte after that.
A 3 gig per month limit might not sound too bad, however look at it this way. The download limit acts in practise as a kind of speed cap. If you want to run your modem flat-chat and as a true "broadband" service, you can only do so for around half an hour per day. Or on the other hand you could use the modem constantly, but at a much lower speed, ie only equivalent maybe to dialup speeds. So where's the "unlimited broadband access" they have advertised!
Rates are about $70 per month (equivalent to around US 35 dollars), and installation is $189 to $400 (US $95 to $200), depending on the length of the contract you sign up for ( 3 to 18 months). It's a bit irrelevant whether you own the modem afterwards or not as you cannot switch to another service anyway!
Speeds are nominally 256/64 (for a bit under US $35 per month) or 512/128 (for a bit over US $35 per month)
These speeds are not always achieved, but I can't really give you any accurate figures on speed. (Especially now I can't use the damn thing properly anymore due to the download limit!)
The worst thing though is the patronising emails they have sent around in explaining this new limit:
"For the large majority of Freedom Plan customers, this allowance will
not impact on their current usage patterns and will provide them with
improved network performance. This is because around five percent of
users take up 35 percent of total bandwidth at any one time. This
group places a severe burden on the network which greatly reduces
performance for most customers."
As you can see, they are trying to demonise that group of users who actually use this nominally "broad band" service *as* a broadband service. They are betting that most users in Asutralia are not tech-savvy enough and/or acquainted with the idea of what broadband really means to bridle at this. Unfortunately they may be correct. I find it very upsetting
Any comments?
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok
I found some more in the bottom of the drawer...
I'll let you know if I am running low again. :)
Hehehehe I had a very similar problem in Australia with Telstra's cable service - all I wanted to know was the name of the mail server - 5 days later, they did in fact send me an email with the name I needed; I don't know why I had to spend an hour on the phone then wait 5 days for someone who actually *knew* to get back to me though...
This could be a little off-topic, but I'd just like to describe the situation we are currently facing in Australia. Things are very bad here. (In regards to cable internet access, that is... i will avoid commenting on any thing else!) By the way, I'm not in any way trying to say that just because things are worse here that you guys shouldn't be complaining - I think you should, loud and clear, and I'd just like to give you a little cautionary tale about how bad things can get with large monopolies in the telecommunications industry. The two suppliers of cable internet in Australia are Telstra and Optus. They do not however directly compete as they are available in different areas, so in a sense they each have their own monopoly. Telstra, who operate in my area, have just retro-actively introduced a download limit of 3 gig per month (including both up and downstream data). This service was advertised as "unlimited", subject to the provisions of the "Acceptable Use Policy" (AUP), however after a year or so they have added clauses to the AUP instigating the 3 gig limit. They claim that the current levels of usage are "degrading network performance", ie they are blaming their users for their own incompetancy. I don't know why they signed up so many users if they are unable to provide the services advertised. Obviously a fairly extreme miscalculation! On the other hand, the most likely thing is that they are actually deliberately throttling supply in order to squeeze every last miserable cent out of early-adopters. (after the three hig limit is reached, you then pay 19 cents per meg ( around US 9 or 10 cents) for every megabyte after that. A 3 gig per month limit might not sound too bad, however look at it this way. The download limit acts in practise as a kind of speed cap. If you want to run your modem flat-chat and as a true "broadband" service, you can only do so for around half an hour per day. Or on the other hand you could use the modem constantly, but at a much lower speed, ie only equivalent maybe to dialup speeds. So where's the "unlimited broadband access" they have advertised! Rates are about $70 per month (equivalent to around US 35 dollars), and installation is $189 to $400 (US $95 to $200), depending on the length of the contract you sign up for ( 3 to 18 months). It's a bit irrelevant whether you own the modem afterwards or not as you cannot switch to another service anyway! Speeds are nominally 256/64 (for a bit under US $35 per month) or 512/128 (for a bit over US $35 per month) These speeds are not always achieved, but I can't really give you any accurate figures on speed. (Especially now I can't use the damn thing properly anymore due to the download limit!) The worst thing though is the patronising emails they have sent around in explaining this new limit: "For the large majority of Freedom Plan customers, this allowance will not impact on their current usage patterns and will provide them with improved network performance. This is because around five percent of users take up 35 percent of total bandwidth at any one time. This group places a severe burden on the network which greatly reduces performance for most customers." As you can see, they are trying to demonise that group of users who actually use this nominally "broad band" service *as* a broadband service. They are betting that most users in Asutralia are not tech-savvy enough and/or acquainted with the idea of what broadband really means to bridle at this. Unfortunately they may be correct. I find it very upsetting Any comments?