Class action lawsuit over service caps !!!

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 9:22 pm

All users of @home who had way faster speeds before the transition to comcast and the mondo low caps should unite and sue . It's written on the box for my comcast@home install kit up to 50 times faster that 56k . Well at 1.5 cap it'll never be 50 times faster not to mention all the time with @home at one speed , and boom capped . No notification no new contract . They're gettin too greedy . I could see a 3mbit cap , but 1500 is ridiculous . We need to progress towards higher speeds not the other way around . Oh and rmember back in the day when modems would get faster from 1200 baud up to 56k . Yeah where are those advances in the cable modem . If we don't take a stand now we'll be payin 100 dollars for half the service we get now in 2 years .

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 11:07 pm

It would never, EVER stand up in court and would be tossed out in the street. The keywords are in your very own post: "up to 50 times faster that 56k ." There has never been and are no guaranteed speeds, just a bunch of "up-to's."

Sorry. We've already thought of that one too.

Stu · Post by **Stu** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 12:13 am

It would never, EVER stand up in court and would be tossed out in the street. The keywords are in your very own post: "up to 50 times faster that 56k ." There has never been and are no guaranteed speeds, just a bunch of "up-to's."

Actually, it would stand up in court. The "up to" phrase implies that it is actually possible (in theory) to reach 50 times 56Kbps. Therefore, it could be considered to be false advertising, as the cap prohibits the 50 times 56Kbps from ever being attainable (in theory or in fact).

It would be similar to me advertising a Dodge Neon that reaches speeds up to Mach 1, when in reality it could never reach Mach 1 (you'd be lucky if it went 130 mph).

So, it wouldn't "get thrown out of court." More likely, you'd go broke paying the legal bills from taking them to court. But, if you could actually afford it, you'd have a good shot at winning--eventually.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 12:14 am

Okay. Go for it. I'll watch...

Casper · Post by **Casper** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:06 am

Heres the question, can you pay more $$ a month and get faster speeds? I have dsl and they also advertize the same thing. I can pay more a month and get faster speeds. Can you do the same thing with cable? If cable is like DSL in the fact that you can increase your speeds by paying for it, then what they say is completely legal. But, even if you can say pay the extra money for the "opertunity" to get the speeds you might not because even though you pay to get it they wont even garrentee that you will. You see I know cable depends on how many people are logged on to you your line, unlike DSL. So you actually would lose.

Food for thought

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 7:14 am

@home is gone. The original contract is null and void and there's a new one in its place. New game in town. Consumer loses. As always.

I'm as unhappy about the loss of my speeds as anyone else, but all our complaining falls on deaf ears and I just don't see where we have a leg to stand on folks.

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 9:42 am

Seriously though I'm sure I'm not the only one who watched modem speeds increase as the technology got better . Wheres that speed increase with cable . Also as for your question can you pay more to get more with comcast the answer is no . I asked everybody gets the same joke service . If we could pushed a medium such as the telephone line as far as 56k i'm sure there is lots of room left for improvement for cable . The only thing that capped me in the olden days was my modem . If we're not careful eventualy they'll have us payin for every bit and byte that crosses their network . Other networks that have our information cross their servers will probably charge us roaming fees like a cell phone . Comcast has just gotten greedy . Just like the cable companys in general . It's not like we could switch to their competitor . It's a big monopoly . Just one game in town with cable internet . Also here in pa they are tryin to pass a law that the cable companys have to let their customer choose service providers and all the isps would get access to comcasts network . But , Get this i talked to them and they said it wouldn't matter if you went with another provider (if it actually went through) our caps would still be in place . Hardcore monopoly .

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 12:24 pm

Originally posted by SilverDakota
@home is gone. The original contract is null and void and there's a new one in its place. New game in town. Consumer loses. As always.

I'm as unhappy about the loss of my speeds as anyone else, but all our complaining falls on deaf ears and I just don't see where we have a leg to stand on folks.

No one likes it when they lose speed in their service, but the fact of the matter is stated above. Complain all you want, it won't change the matter any.

I expect when this thread is looked at by the mods, it will be closed.

https://www.speedguide.net/forums/ ... adid=32417

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 12:33 pm

I think they'll let it stay . Remember this article is on the sites main page :

@Home to Comcast transitions are happening... - posted January 30, 6:14 PM EST by John

... and overall the people are not very happy. It seems the new caps, both up and down have people getting upset- including the technicians themselves.

Personally, my transition occurs this Saturday. Up until now, I have been uncapped- it will be a rough transition to move to their new 1.5mbps down standard... especially since I will be paying the same amount for the service.

At least broadband has survived, and I am safe from AOL for another few months.

DaveM · Post by **DaveM** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 12:59 pm

Originally posted by vic451
... If we're not careful eventualy they'll have us payin for every bit and byte that crosses their network . Other networks that have our information cross their servers will probably charge us roaming fees like a cell phone ...

LOL

Thats exactly how the internet works!
Do you ever wonder why, say, a server on Alternet that is the first hop out of your ISP's backbone might have 50% + packet loss?

Well thats because your ISP buys a fixed amount of bandwidth from Trunk Line providers. If the amount of DATA that your ISP exceeds the amount that your ISP has provisioned to use (buy) then usually a new trunk connection in the form of A new Fiber feed, or some other increase in bandwidth is provisioned and your ISP buys more bandwidth from the TRUNK companies.

So you see, your ISP (and mine), has to pay for every bit of data that leaves and for every bit that enters into their network.

Thats why servers are against the TOS. You've got a server running at full capacity and you have a ton of data constantly flowing.

The people who are complaining the most are generally the people who use the most of the resources.

Suck it up! I liked the faster speeds, but I'm paying less than 56K service and an extra phone line for my 1.5Mb/sec down.

Also, as far as ATTBI.COM goes.....
I have had more consistent service with less interuption than I ever had with @HOME. Including the transistional phase.

I miss the speeds too, but you forget your subscription fee pays for the AT&T attbi.com backbone (or your ISP) and the exit ramp to the internet TRUNK Providers. And there isn't just one exit, thats why you may stay on ATTBI.com (or your ISP) for only a few cities or several states before leaving the local backbone.

Your ISP is trying to provide you with the best service they can afford to provide you with.

Why do you think @Home went under? They couldn't pay their BILLS!

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:06 pm

Actually @home went under because cheap cable companies kept on lowering and lowering the price they were willing to pay for @homes services and finally @home just couldn't make it on what they were willing to pay . Also while they were biddin down the @home service they were raising our rates . Why don't you look at the cost for comcast as compared to Using @homes service . When you look at it over a period of years the are saving counless amounts of money having their own networks yet they reduce our service and charge us more .

Stu · Post by **Stu** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:19 pm

@Home went down because Excite bought it and transferred all its debt to @Home. @Home was a strong company with very little debt before Excite sunk its talons into it.

Large companies do stuff like this all the time.

Mike_W · Post by **Mike_W** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:45 pm

Something else we gotta face soon too, is that Comcast likely WILL offer greater speeds for more bucks in package "deals" (laugh..haha). But, will that paid for speed boost also come with a clause such as "Up to XXX times faster than 56k"???
If so, will we pay the extra money for the extra speed and never see it??
The more I think about it the more pi$$ed off I become. I am a single computer user, I don't game, I am not a bandwidth theif, I do not modify or muck with my modem. If Comcast says its cap is due to those who abuse the system, then go after those ba$tards and let us who pay good money for our service actually GET the service we were told we'd have.
I agree with the person above who said a law suit might work. If the said speeds are physically NOT reachable due to a bandwidth cap, then it is FALSE advertising. And even though Comcast now has their own network, they still put their name on the service with @Home. In todays society, that type of business usually doesnt get very far.
And, if the over 4 million people who were on the @Home service are still with cable service from whoever grabbed their slice of market would band together (unlikely), it might present a very strong front against our new providers.

Kip Patterson · Post by **Kip Patterson** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 5:20 pm

The language in the message at the top of the forum is mine. It was put there because of a sudden spate of messages here and elsewhere that I felt were complaints and nothing more.

Criticism, healthy or sometimes not, is legitimate fare.

I'd like to add some of my own comments:

Comcast is new to the business of providing the upstream part of internet connectivity. I urge everyone to give them a lot of leeway when it comes to outages, excessive pings, unanswered support calls and email and the like.

Their decision to cap the download at 1.5 when it was previously 3.0 is not reasonable, given their representations that things would not change.

Everyone else that has tried a proxy has abandoned it. Comcast should do the same, it is more trouble than it is worth. It generates and will continue to generate tech support calls. It doesn't take much in the way of calculation to show that every time a customer calls support, it eats up most of one month's profit from that customer,

I would rather that Usenet went away, to be replaced by moderated forums such as this one. My guess is that will happen, and so the issue of Usenet access will probably be moot in a couple of years.

Tiered pricing (and maybe PPPoE) is coming. The reality is that the Internet and our use of it has changed since cable modems were introduced. Downloading whole applications, Kazaa and the like, the advent of the digital camera and home servers have all changed things. I'd guess that each of us on this forum is a loss leader for the cable company because of the volume of our activity, and they can't afford to carry us anymore.

Kip

vic451 · Post by **vic451** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 9:04 pm

It's costs comcast roughly half or less to carry us itself instead of using @home . Also that costs drops for each year that comcast can write off a portion of the initial investment . Even if they capped the service at 5000kbits they would still profit with the new arrangement . Comcast is gonna peeve alot of people . They recently bought att broadband . They may transition them ala 1.5 128 .

On another note i had a tech out here at the house today . He of course told me "You have a problem " . Anyway after his leaving to consult with the higher powers i saw on the invoice he left they listed my service as silver . So this substantiates the idea of tiered service silver , gold , platinum . But as was stated earlier for an additional unamed some you will get "UP TO" . Just another way to rip us off for something they won't guarantee . After this recent switchover i really tried for another service type , but it just don't happen dsl = not available / pay more for less , and there apparantly is only one choice for broadband cable . Forget satellite (price) . So here i am with somethin that wasn't supposed to change or get worse that did change and get worse (Slow down , packet loss , bad ping) and i am actually paying 10 dollars more than what i was paying . We as end users need to have a unified voice or these companys will continue this (I was gettin better uploads shotgunnin two analogs in the olden days).

aceman · Post by **aceman** » Sat Feb 09, 2002 8:53 pm

I agree with the one's that want to stand up and say something. If we never say a word then why should we even talk about it. things change when pepole are willing to stand up to the companys and try...TRY to make something better or make something work like it was promised to. The "up to" speed implies that we are actually able to reach those speeds even if only in optimal conditions....with this cap in place we will never be able to reach it at all. I am always one for speaking up thank to the ex-wife. If I only got one bit of goog advise from her that would be "The squeaky wheel gets the oil" Thanks Ex. We should try it!!!!

aceman · Post by **aceman** » Sat Feb 09, 2002 8:55 pm

Oops...sorry for the errors in my writing.

Unregistered · Post by **Unregistered** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 12:07 am

Okay, here's my two cents.

In regards to the promise of "50x the speed of 56K", or 100 for that matter, let's analyze this...

56k phone modems. They don't exist. I'll be damned if I EVER see a "56K" phone modem actually send or receive at 56,000 bytes a second. I've only seem them go, at max, to speeds of 8-10k a second, woohoo! That's smokin' speed there.... Not...

With this in mind, you can basically do the math, 6x59=300k... That's not bad, it's not "fast", or rather it's not as fast as most people WANT to go, but it's within the limitations of a 56kx50 speed...

So how fast does my service go? Roughly between 300-700k a second, those are often under special conditions, on average we're talking about 150K, hey, that's life....

As far as bandwidth limitations go, I'm nuetral, why? Because I don't send and receive that much. Realistically, the average user doesn't, and if you think you've gotta host some big online service from your home PC then don't. They have high bandwidth servers with lower ping than you have for those specific purposes...

Don't get your panties in a wad because you're aware of a limitation, most people have limitations on their ISP and usually don't even realize until they reach it - and most don't. But when you're aware of it, you're more likely to "make the most of it", waste it in other words.

Personally, I have no idea what my cap is, or if I have one, maybe I do and maybe I don't, I don't know. I do mostly online gaming... Which if this is what you do most of the time, don't sweat it...

I know this doesn't speak for all games, but on the original Quake I played for about 5 hours and in that entire time I only recieved a maximum of 16MB, that was in one sitting of course...

Well, my point is this: Don't freak out over caps, they're not as bad as they sound.

Okay, no on to the lawsuit...

I don't think the lawsuit would stand, don't misunderstand the 56k promise. Because, if you know what 56k actually means, then you'll know it's a misconception, a lie, people just like the way 56k sounds, like it's super fast. It ain't, never was, never will be.

Deep thoughts...
By Jack Handy

Mike_W · Post by **Mike_W** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 1:23 am

Originally posted by Mike_W
Something else we gotta face soon too, is that Comcast likely WILL offer greater speeds for more bucks in package "deals" (laugh..haha). But, will that paid for speed boost also come with a clause such as "Up to XXX times faster than 56k"???
If so, will we pay the extra money for the extra speed and never see it??

I personally am NOT in a wad over the cap. ^^up there is what I'm concerned about. The "package deals" that cost more for what....another "up to" promise?

Unregistered · Post by **Unregistered** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 2:40 am

Well, you have to understand though, 56K modems didn't actually do 56K, they did about 8-10K...

So assuming that you WERE using a 56k modem, with an average speed of 8-10K, then 50x that amount is about 300k, give or take, which is an ideal cable modem.

Actually, mine doesn't even run that fast normally, I normally only dish out about 150k normall, unless I'm using DAP, then I can push for 700K+.

So realistically, they're not lying... Unless of course you have one of the magical 56K modems that actually sends 56K a second.

All I want to know is: Where the hell'd you get THAT?!

Mike_W · Post by **Mike_W** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 5:50 pm

There are several Comcast employees here at SpeedGuide. The "package deal" was spoke of in another thread a couple weeks ago. It is not, nor did I mean to imply that it is a fact. Just from the info I got, it seems likely they will offer these packages. You can talk to several other members and get more info. I'll try to post the thread I am speaking of if I can find it.

Einstein_DSci · Post by **Einstein_DSci** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 7:49 pm

56k = 56 kilobits ... 56 * 50 = 2800kbs ... if you are capped at 1500kbs then you could never reach 2800kbs.

One can't compare kbits and Kbytes without converting.