DescentBB

...the next time you see their logo or ads.

PCWORLD wrote:As first reported by Engadget, AT&T customer Giorgio Galante says he sent two e-mails over a span of two weeks to CEO Randall Stephenson. Galente says one e-mail asked about bumping up his iPhone upgrade eligibility date, while the other complained about the aforementioned data plan change. Neither e-mail, according to Galente, was in any way rude, hostile, or threatening. Yet, soon after his second message was sent, Galente says he received a voicemail from an AT&T flack "thanking" him for his feedback -- and informing him he'd be the recipient of a cease-and-desist letter if he tried to contact Stephenson again. AT&T reportedly apologized for the incident late Thursday afternoon. But in my book, treating a customer like crap and then apologizing once you realize your voicemail's on the Internet isn't a great way of doing business. It's like the guy who punches you in the face and then says he's sorry when your bodybuilder buddy walks up. Despite his feigned remorse, that man is no gentlemen.

Be sure not to email this guy:
http://consumerist.com/2007/08/updated- ... enson.html

Yeah... sending e-mails to the CEO isn't normally the smartest idea if you actually want them read/actioned, but it's not exactly harassment either.

Neither AT&T nor Verizon appear to score very good marks on customer service from what I've seen...

For years we had DSL service through BellSouth which was then acquired by AT&T. We paid for 1.5 Mb/sec down/256 kb/sec up service and consistently got exactly what we paid for. For several months now, it has become quite obvious that the cap on our account has been lowered by 16% on both up and down speeds. It doesn't matter whether you run a test like SpeedTest or just download a file, it is quite obvious that the cap has been lowered, but supposedly, we are still paying for the same service level that we have had for years, and I am not aware of any unilateral changes in the service agreement. I can run tests repeatedly, and they are very consistent, but they are 16% lower than what they used to be.

It is certainly true that AT&T doesn't guarantee that we will get their advertised speeds all the time, but it was obvious that the cap was set at the levels they advertised until recently. So draw your own conclusions, and think twice before you sign up for AT&T DSL.

Just out of curiosity what were the raw speed differences? Did it drop from about 190 KB/sec to about 155 KB/sec?

akula65, you should call AT&T tech support and make sure you get to tier 2. Refuse to talk to level one and ask for level 2 (which is in the states). Ask the agent to check to make sure your speed is still set to the 1.5Mbit you are paying for. Sometimes for whatever reason the speed is changed by an automated system and set wrong. Maybe they replaced a dslam and it wasn't set back up correctly. After they have verified you at 1.5 ask for a \"rip and rebuild\" which will rip out your configuration and build it back in (it will bring your internet connection down for a few seconds). The agent at level 2 will most likely do that anyway without you even asking just to make sure. Then run a speed test (speedtest.net or any others you prefer) with the agent on the line and make sure you are getting between 1.1 - 1.3 down. You will never get 1.5 on a 1.5 connection because of protocol overhead and latency.

You might even have a bad line caused by noise (recent rain can cause issues with bad lines) or a bridge tap that needs to be removed (outside issues). The agent should have run line test tools that will tell them this in which case they will have to set up a tech visit to come out and check the lines. Just make sure all your OTHER phones in the house have those DSL filters on them and that the modem does NOT have a filter or AT&T will likely charge you for the visit.

Krom, those are exactly the speeds both before and after.

Xamindar, we DID get 1.5 mb/sec on a very consistent basis for years. Virtually every single time I would run something like Speedtest.net it was reporting bang on 1.5 mb/s from any server within a few hundred miles. If a download was not rate-limited by a server, it would run at 190-200 kb/sec, with reasonable variation due to server loads or net traffic. Now it never exceeds 155 kb/s, and the Speedtest.net values max out at about 1.26-1.3 mb/sec down and 210 kb/sec up.

We have had instances of DSL and/or phone service outages due to external issues over the years, but never any DSL speed changes. DSL either worked or it didn't, and when it did, the speed was remarkably consistent.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Isaac, sorry to make such a wreck of your thread.

akula65 wrote:we DID get 1.5 mb/sec on a very consistent basis for years.

I'm sorry, but with the way DSL technology works, if you are set to 1.5Mbit in the dslam and CO it is impossible to actually get that exact speed in real download speeds. I worked in the DSL industry for years and I have never seen a 1.5Mbit get 1.5, 1.3 or sometimes even 1.4 if you are really close to the CO sure, but not 1.5.

Yeah, for whatever reason they quit capping the payload and switched to capping the raw data rate. All DSL operates on a 8b / 10b encoding, so for every 8 bits (payload) you get, it has an additional start and stop bit bringing it up to 10 bits total raw data. Previously you were getting 1.875 Mbit raw data rate which yields 1.5 mbit payload (192 KB/sec) and they have now set it to 1.5 Mbit raw data rate which will yield 1.2 mbits (153.6 KB/sec). Its iffy if they will correct that.

I think there is a class action against AT&T regarding this speed issue. At least there was a little while back, not sure where it went though.

And if what both of you are saying is true, then it reflects a fundamental policy change with regard to customers, and I don't recall any sort of notification about it. If somebody institutes a policy change that cuts your speed by 16%, then that merits a bold-type notification on billing statements and and an email as well. This is NOT my idea of good customer service.

akula65 wrote:This is NOT my idea of good customer service.

You are right, it is terrible customer service. Just wait until they also start imposing a monthly bandwidth cap on your DSL. That is what will cause me to drop them like a rock. AT&T already tested a cap on their customers in Nevada. Not sure if they decided to scrap the idea or are still planning to implement it on all their customers yet though. But that's the reason I dropped Comcast for the lesser of the two evils. If they both start doing it not sure which one to pick anymore.

Just wait until the FCC takes control of all the internet providers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05323.html

Welcome to net neutrality Obama Style.

The proposal, to be announced Thursday, is expected to be opposed by broadband network operators such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, whose Internet access businesses are becoming their main source of revenue as consumers rely on the Web as a primary communication tool.

On net neutrality, here is what AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Etc want it to be like: if AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon were Ford, Chevy and Toyota, then you could only drive your Ford, Chevy or Toyota on roads owned by the company that made it, and you could only buy goods that were transported on roads owned by the company. If you wanted to ride a Toyota on a Ford road, or if you wanted to buy goods transported from a Chevy road using your Ford then you would have to pay an exorbitant toll fee to them and to your own company for every inch traveled.

In a more internet type description of what the telecoms want: if you are a Comcast customer and you wish to play an online game with a friend who is on AT&T and use voice chat, not only are both of you going to have to pay for your internet service, but you will also have to pay a special fee for data that came to you through your friends provider, and a special fee for your data going over your friends provider and you will both have to pay a special fee for any traffic that went over third parties in between AND you will have to pay a special fee for the game to even work, possibly including another fee for voice chat part to work.

If you want to put up your own blog, or say forum (like the DBB) on the internet, not only will you have to pay for the server and the bandwidth you use, but you will also have to pay Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and every other internet service provider or you will be relegated to the \"slow\" lane of the internet if they give you connectivity at all. For any user that wants to view your blog/forum/site/whatever they will have to pay, and you will have to pay for them to be able to see it as well. Which is how cable TV works: the customers pay the cable provider to see a channel, and the channel also pays the cable company to show it to the customers.

Also since in the current state of regulation is is often illegal for another provider to come in and compete with the duopoly that is already established, you will be stuck with whoever you have and your bill will regularly go up in price, while the service you get will regularly go down (so they can charge you overage fees). Yup, surely this is capitalism at its finest, huge companies controlling everything to the extent that it is actually illegal to compete with them.

I like the Fox News spin on this:

Isaac wrote:I like the Fox News spin on this:

I don't.

Segregating the internet into \"camps\" has to be one of the daftest ideas I've ever heard. There's no reasonable way to keep from crossing into someone else's, and there's no good reason you should have to.

Without net neutrality I see a day when you have to pay fees for every type of application that you wish to use on the net. So for instance you have to pay an instant messenger fee in order to use previously free instant messengers like AOL or ICQ. You have to pay an IRC fee in order to be able to access IRC servers and chat. You have to pay a gaming fee in order to play online multiplayer games. You have to pay a YouTube fee in order to watch YouTube videos. Etc.

The main point opponents bring up about net neutrality is \"The government is taking over the internet!\", when what the FCC actually hopes to accomplish is to prevent any entity (including the government) from being able to \"take over the internet\".

Do you really want your internet service to be treated and billed in the same manner as your cable TV and cellular phone service? If you don't like the sound of that, then you should be supporting net neutrality.

Real funny how the internet used to be free. Funnier still is how VOIP used to be free.We already have to pay fees for gaming I can name 10 games off the bat that make you pay to play.

1) World of Warcraft

2) Lord of the Rings Online

3) Aion

4) Eve Online

5) Final Fantasy XI

6) City of Heroes/City of Villains

7) Champions Online

Dark Age of Camelot

9) Warhammer Online

10) Age of Conan

Servers don't come free so to play games there is that fee not to mention the fee for internet services to have internet access.

Now we just have to give more money to the government to maintain a free environment thats a load of laughs.

You've overlooked something I think, Krom. People won't put up with your car company scenario. It's just too much BS.

If the big businesses are the bad guys and the government are the good guys, then why are we taxed six ways from Sunday? And why do some of the taxes that we have to deal with actually so closely resemble the cluster-**** that you just detailed?

You already put up with it from your cell phone provider Thorne. When was the last time you paid attention to how your phone billing / service works?

Beginning June 7, new AT&T smartphone users won't be able to use an unlimited amount of data on their handsets for a set price. The carrier's introducing a tiered set of mobile data services -- just in time for the expected arrival of the next iPhone.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/7014 ... 1275758412

Krom wrote:The main point opponents bring up about net neutrality is "The government is taking over the internet!", when what the FCC actually hopes to accomplish is to prevent any entity (including the government) from being able to "take over the internet".

Not to mention a government agency, DARPA, created ARPANET, the original version of the internet. All they'd be doing is regaining control over what they originally created.


Anyone remember when cable first came out and what they said? yeah if companies gain control over the internet the same thing will happen. Probably every ten minutes.

At any rate, knee-jerk \"government regulation = bad, free enterprise = good\" reactions massively miss the picture. These companies aren't in it for you (and they are smart enough to know how to circumvent competition), so it would be nice if these people would look into the issue a bit more than freaking out about the government trying to control yet another area.

Heretic wrote:Real funny how the internet used to be free. Funnier still is how VOIP used to be free.We already have to pay fees for gaming I can name 10 games off the bat that make you pay to play.

1) World of Warcraft

2) Lord of the Rings Online

3) Aion

4) Eve Online

5) Final Fantasy XI

6) City of Heroes/City of Villains

7) Champions Online

Dark Age of Camelot

9) Warhammer Online

10) Age of Conan

Servers don't come free so to play games there is that fee not to mention the fee for internet services to have internet access.

Now we just have to give more money to the government to maintain a free environment thats a load of laughs.

How can everquest not be on that list?


Sirius:

I had the same thought. Really, at the end of the day, I'd say it's "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't."

Those are all MMo's. Of course you have to pay to play.

There are plenty of free mmo's D&Donline is free. you have to pay to get the \"really cool\" stuff though. There is going to be a free Clone Wars MMO by Sony soon. that looks pretty nice.
Few things are free. And as companies charge and are charged for bandwidth, it's not surprising the internet \"isn't free\". It never has been. We've all been moochers.

Guess you never heard of netzero which at one time provided free internet.

Telenet (later called Sprintnet) was a large privately funded national computer network with free dial-up access in cities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History

What about modern warfare 2? You pay 60 bucks for a game and then they don't even setup dedicated servers but mooch off of others connections by going P2P.

Official dedicated servers haven't even been around that long. Nobody thought anything of it when Descent 3 didn't have any official dedicated servers. (/thread bump to get it back)

It's not really the double charging issues I'm worried about, where they charge you for going out of network. The bigger problem I have is maliciously lagging people who use these other networks. The telecoms recently fought to keep this right, in the name of \"Internet Freedom\". The telecoms can favor certain sites and lag the competitors for a competitive edge; they could favor Daily Motion, for what ever reason, and see Youtube as a competitor. They can also block sites completely, who they see as a threat. This thread on this site could be seen as a threat to them. It would be up to company policy to determine what is a threat.
FYI
Internet Freedom: Generally used by those who want less Internet Neutrality.

The MMO RPG analogy doesn't work because people and businesses are already paying for their broadband connections and can choose to subscribe to online services. If you believe this debate is about having the internet be free of charge, not requiring a recurring fee, then you don't understand what the issue is. The telecoms want to find a way to double charge users for using the Internet. They also want to compete by slowing the \"roads\" between the user and competitor's sites.

Much like Digital Rights Management, the Internet Freedom heralded by the US telecoms do more to restrict usage then to grant it.

It is freedom for the telecoms to do whatever they want in terms of billing practices and service quality. It can be as good, or more often as bad as they want it to be and because of a severe lack of competition, there are no other options for the consumer.

Krom wrote:Much like Digital Restrictions Management, the Internet Freedom heralded by the US telecoms do more to restrict usage then to grant it.

It is freedom for the telecoms to do whatever they want in terms of billing practices and service quality. It can be as good, or more often as bad as they want it to be and because of a severe lack of competition, there are no other options for the consumer.

There, fixed that for you.

There have been ISPs who have forwarded bad dns requests to their own ad laden search page and others have already restricted certain types of traffic such as bit torrent. Imagine not being able to use google or bing or yahoo and instead being forced to use your isps search engine unless you pay a little extra. The isps have unfortunately already demonstrated that they do not care one bit about you. All they care about is getting as much money out of you as they can while getting you to use as little bandwidth as possible. There needs to be regulation because it is better than the alternative. Also, because some people do not have a choice of which isp to use. If everyone could choose between 20 different isps then sure, leave the government out of it. With the small amount of competition there is in this service and almost monopolies that exist there needs to be some sort of regulation.

Isaac wrote:It's not really the double charging issues I'm worried about, where they charge you for going out of network. The bigger problem I have is maliciously lagging people who use these other networks. The telecoms recently fought to keep this right, in the name of "Internet Freedom". The telecoms can favor certain sites and lag the competitors for a competitive edge; they could favor Daily Motion, for what ever reason, and see Youtube as a competitor. They can also block sites completely, who they see as a threat. This thread on this site could be seen as a threat to them. It would be up to company policy to determine what is a threat.
FYI
Internet Freedom: Generally used by those who want less Internet Neutrality.

The MMO RPG analogy doesn't work because people and businesses are already paying for their broadband connections and can choose to subscribe to online services. If you believe this debate is about having the internet be free of charge, not requiring a recurring fee, then you don't understand what the issue is. The telecoms want to find a way to double charge users for using the Internet. They also want to compete by slowing the "roads" between the user and competitor's sites.

My point is Issac and Heretic that it is not "free". It might seem that way on the user end, but someone shells out money for servers and bandwidth. Sometimes ads are used to compensate, sometimes the business sells off your info to data mining company or ads. Isaac, your subscription to MMO's help pay for bandwidth, servers and maintenance and further development of the game. Granted they are taking in more than cost and a ton of profit, but most folks don't mind. Look at how many people line up to pay for DLC?

complaining about free Internet this or that in todays business model and culture does nothing more than make you look like an elitist whiner.

Look at credit cards. Did you know that there is a double charge on those? Both you AND the business that you use it at have to pay a fee for the service. But, we live with it. I'm not justifying it, merely pointing to examples.

Duper, when people say \"free internet\" they aren't referring to a cost free internet.

it doesn't matter Issac. When the average person hear the word \"free\", they generally form a superlative image in their minds. Regardless of details.

I understand what \"free internet\" is but it's kinda like the hacker discussion. There is a whole level that escapes the average person.

It's a good thing that all the DBBers are of above average intelligence then aye?

Are they?

(:mrgreen:)

What are you talking about? Hasn't the internet always been free? Linksys is a very generous provider.

Ok... I'm going insane, officially.

Xamindar wrote:Also, because some people do not have a choice of which isp to use. If everyone could choose between 20 different isps then sure, leave the government out of it. With the small amount of competition there is in this service and almost monopolies that exist there needs to be some sort of regulation.

There's the problem: Capitalism helps the consumer when there's healthy competition. IMO the answer is that the government should step in and regulate the anti-competitive moves that some of these companies try, but should make all efforts to keep the regulation as minimal as possible. If companies can't "cheat," then competition will jump in & regulate actual pricing where things start getting out of control.

The only reason that would not be a valid argument is if the internet is considered a necessity, not a commodity.

Also: as far as the "per-usage" fees go. I see that going about the way that pay-by-the-minute cell phone plans do. They will have their place, for low usage users. High-usage "unlimited" plans will still exist, and high-usage users will be savvy enough the find the cheapest option. I don't anticipate the actual cost going up much for any user, provided they research their options and make a smart decision about where to go.

I don't like the bit asterisk that internet providers make you sign, saying that speeds aren't guaranteed. I've always felt like it open the user up to getting gouged in the name of "unreliability."

Actually the surest method to get competition back is to free up the \"roads\".

Did you know that anyone with enough money to afford JUST the labor can build a road in the US and the government has extremely limited power to stop them...but at the same time once the road is built it actually belongs to the government? Once built it always becomes a public road, and ANYONE (within reasonable limits, eg: weight limits) can use it.

Right now the ISPs own all the networks, they are defined as private networks which is done for one reason and one reason alone: to lock out competition. The ISPs owning the network benefits absolutely nobody but the ISPs themselves. It is one of the most anti-competitive practices allowed on any national level project or service in the entire world, let alone in the US.

Look up \"open access\" laws about telecommunications on the net sometime, other countries use this and it is very effective. The US even uses it for our socialized highway system: again pretty much anyone can build and or upgrade a road, but everyone owns it and can use it. The internet needs to work the same way. And doing it that way can actually be accomplished with LESS regulation than we currently have.

Alternatives to just forcing the networks open for all are worthless or retarded, you can't legislate competition and forced price controls are counterproductive to development. More backwards policies and strict requirements, even transparency in billing won't help (It'll just be a transparent ripoff instead of a hidden one). What you can legislate is tearing down all these artificial barriers to competition that have been built up by these companies and their lobbies.