[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] Secret precedence schemes back then

Jack Haverty wrote:

> See
> http://www.hughes.com/HUGHES/rooms/displaypages/layoutinitial?pageid=fairaccess
> 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 
the ratfinks.]

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 
exemption, please'.

> 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 
lamp post.]

cheers, map

[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]