Talking Points

56k modems can transfer 32GB a Month!

See http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20871979-56k-modems-can-transfer-32GB-a-Month for a graphic/chart. It’s my graphic, you may use it on your site or copy the data.

One thing the ISP’s like Time Warner or Frontier do not mention is that a subscriber cannot predict how many bytes of data will be downloaded when visiting a website. Many websites send advertising slide shows, streaming audio and/or streaming video while a person visits a web page. Furthermore there is the usage created by many software programs automatically log into the software creators server for updates. For example: Windows Activation, Anti Virus programs and other software products. Broadband Subscribers will be faced with the problem if companies like Time Warner and Frontier set usage limits. I have a better solution, and that is to require websites sending streaming data streams to pay the ISP’s for carrying their traffic. If the ISP’s want to limit P2P traffic they can take a lesson from Japan where the ISP’s are limiting upstream traffic to 30GB per day. You might want to inquire of the Broadband ISP’s how they intend to resolve these issues.

Wow…thats a retarded cable company.

As almost all broadband providers in this country are also video/television providers, the cap concept is clearly a way to get paid for each movie seen wither via broadband Internet or your friendly cable box. A duopoly as we have here in San Antonio consists Time Warner Cable and AT&T, both of which are discussing caps. There is no other provider to turn to. Not only that, but the largest cable operator, Comcast, has a stake in ClearWire, the only potential nation wide provider of broadband wireless Internet (Wi-Max) probably ensuring a cap on them as well. This is an issue the FCC should take a long hard look at as it is clearly using monopoly, price-fixing to ensure a lack of competition

It is going back to the old bill-by-the-minute that the telco’s used for many years.

It’s about paying for advertising. Web pages contain 5-95% paid advertisements. You only have control over previously-visited pages (where you know what to expect). With CAPS, for every page you visit, you’re PAYING to see something that was already PAID for, since the ads paid for the web site’s existence SO you could see it. The guys in the middle are trying to collect from both ends for one service. Call it double-dipping, double jeopardy, or just plain greed, it’s illegal. Internet service was established and is maintained as an Access Speed Rated Service, plain and simple.

It’s like suddenly being charge hourly fees to watch broadcast TV that was already PAID for by the advertising. That’s why they introduced capitalism to the internet, to introduce advertising budgets so someone could turn a buck and we could put a taxable dollar value on a concept. Just like broadcast TV…

OR, looking at things from a different way: It’s like the cable TV company suddenly watching us watch and saying, “Gee Bob, your TV is on 20 hours a day. Jim next door only has his on for 2 hours a day. Guess we’re going to have to start charging you more. Sorry ’bout your luck, TV Hog.” Call it an invasion of privacy, if you will.

I’m NOT against internet ads. It’s how I can watch CBS TV shows (after original broadcast) online. Without the ads, they couldn’t/wouldn’t provide the service. If the major ISPs [who ultimately control all the bandwidth] figure out a way for me to selectively choose the research websites I need without seeing them first and without having to download (at my expense) a bunch of already paid-for bandwidth-hog ads, maybe they could ‘invent’ some sort of ‘legal precedent’. But until then… it’s illegal no matter how you want to look at it.

I really hope someone VERY high up sees my arguments, realizes the illegality of what they’re trying to do with CAPS, and introduces these arguments to where they need to be argued (in court, probably).

I attempted to invoke my right to cancel my contract with Frontier (that I didn’t know I had) with the change of their Acceptable Use Policy and they flat refused without me paying a $450 ETF! Even their competitor (Surewest) advised they violated CPUC regulations by doing so. When I asked the moron at Frontier “is it company policy to deceive and lie to customers?” he replied “I don’t have to answer that question”. Frontier management are extremely arrogant and unhelpful.

Frontier Communications Inc. makes the common mistake of treating their customers as “profit centers,” which may be efficient for their business model, but does nothing for customer relations/loyalty. Since Frontier is the sole provider in many of its service areas, it is free to do what it pleases.

Frontier customers are not well served in any sales related encounter. Beware of what the Rep is saying and not saying. Get everything in writing and demand clarification before saying “yes” to anything on the phone.

Frontier NEVER acknowledges wrongdoing or consents to refund customer payments, no matter how outrageous the company’s actions have been. Customers may be billed for services never delivered, without penalty, since the FCC complaint and Consumer complaint procedures are ineffective and time consuming. The FCC fails to act on 83% of complaints filed, but file a complaint anyway!

The 5GB cap is yet another attempt to maximize Frontier’s profit center yield and delay/avoid future network upgrades by “encouraging” more efficient network utilization. Shareholders are impressed, while customers are angry. For most of us in limited service areas there is no alternative.

Better bend over and get comfortable in that position. I don’t see anyway caps (and later service tiers) can be avoided when the industry has such muscle and the government no backbone at all (forgive the pun).

It’s obvious that we are following in the footsteps of the Australian model and there is absolutely nothing to do about it.