[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
Jack Haverty wrote:
> if you're curious.
ok, i was curious. now i'm furious.
"The Fair Access Policy is straightforward. Based on an analysis of
customer usage data, Hughes has established a download threshold for
each of the HughesNet service plans that is well above the typical usage
rates. Subscribers who exceed that threshold will experience reduced
download speeds for approximately 24 hours."
in the first place, even if They wanted to do an honest analysis, which
one doubts, a priori, it's not clear they can, since the built-in
ceilings foul the sample-space ... unless the analysis was done so long
ago that the ceilings weren't in play, but then the typical usage
patterns would've been different too. so that pious Policy paragraph
strikes me as bigbizweasly. why should i/we take Their word for it that
They've even performed the exercise rather than just setting some limits
that They figure will reap them the most profit.
but more strinkingly, i thought you said you were dead in the water
after the new imac grabbed too many bits, yet here They're saying that
you were just going to experience reduced download speeds. either you
misspoke, i misread, or They lie. guess which one i think is right.
[perhaps the tactic is an application of the redmond ratfinks' ploy of
saying that if you don't 'activate' you'll get reduced functionality,
and when you decide to see what that means, whenever you boot up you're
told that if you don't 'activate' you'll get reduced functionality.
period. hmmm. apparently no functionality is reduced functionality by
if 'equity' were a concern and the realities of usage patterns [such as
system upgrades, or even big patch batches or the occasional new version
of open office, say] were taken into account, the least They could do
would be to have a once a week or once a month 'hey, today i need more
than your arbitrary limit's worth of bits so give me a once-in-a-while
> So, this ISP uses cost as the means for dealing with different types of
> traffic. You can send anything you like, but some kinds of traffic will
> cost you more.
not at all clear to me. quantity of traffic appears to be the only
determinant in play; types/kinds of traffic don't matter, simple
bitcounts do ... unless there are some other factors behind the scenes
of the plinkable you offered above, anyway.
> The "precedence" is set by the user, making the decision
> of what kind of stuff to send. Send too much and *all* your traffic
> gets steerage-class service for the next 24 hours.
huh? 'send'? thought we were talking about receiving.
and then there's
> From a user's perspective, it's mandatory to find every piece of
> software on all your computers or Internet-connected devices that has
> any "automatic update" feature and disable it. Also turn off any
> automatic multimedia features, which seem to be increasingly popular on
> web sites these days. Not always easy.
not always easy for you, and probably damn near impossible for the
technolaity. again, smells like profiteering on the part of the bigbiz
weasels to mr.
ah, but what a pleasant reminder of the nominally good, painfully old
days: here we are again, arguing ... even if it is over matters of far
less moment than whether bbn is obligated to send user/pass commands
when doing netmail via ftp...
the funny thing about this one is that i'm trying to stick up for what i
think ought to be your rights as a consumer and you seem to be happy you
can even get ripped off by the saddleunlite isp[s] because you live
somewhere where you can't even get half the rated speed on the
phonelines. still, i can't bring myself to say that you deserve to be
ripped off just because you choose to live 'out there' somewhere. but
as a probable sign of advancing years [sigh], as long as you're happy or
content or not infuriated with your conectivity circumstances, fine by me.
[and sure, i do realize that saddleunlite service is likely to be
justifiably more expensive than dsl or cable, it's just that i think
it's too much more expensive. but whatthehell, mehitabel, i also think
dsl and cable are more expensive than they ought to be too. and much
good will any of my fine fairness in pricing notions do me, you, or the
[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and
create a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly
customary e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for
a long time now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ...
and who's further broken down and done
http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html, rather grudgingly]