Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Links: Reply New Topic
Forums » US Cable Support » OptimumOnline » Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

thender @ 23rd Oct 04:54AM:
Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

[poll]Would you get ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?,Yes,No[/poll]
For argument's sake, let's say

a) the service still had the $34.95 tech install whatever fee.

b) It cost a tiny bit more a month due to lack of upfront fee. maybe $10-$15. Since they are giving a new modem and new speeds, without a fee, they'd likely subsidize this somehow via higher monthly charge.

Would you have it or not, sans the $300 fee?

I have $300, but it seems like such a swift kick in the balls, that I am not getting the plan out of spite, even though the extra upstream would be helpful sending studio sessions back and forth, etc.

I would still pay the $300 fee, but not for 15. I want something more impressive on upstream. I had 20/20 for under 70/mo. If I am paying TOP DOLLAR, I want _EVERYTHING_ to be better than the FIOS I had, not just downstream. I was on the fence over it, and the $300 tipped me into the no.

Top tier prices and fees call for top tier speeds.

There's also the "up to." I could live with this for $100/mo and a $35 service fee. However, with a $300 fee, well, F you. No up to. I want guarantees. I want contracts stating if it goes below a certain speed at a certain time that I can call someone who will personally see to it my shizzle is fixed, any hour of any day, who will come to my ghetto bushwick apartment and cook me dinner while I wait for my internet to return to its former $335-to-activate glory.
--
Macbook repair in NYC
reply

Jeffrey @ 23rd Oct 10:16AM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

For the sake of discussion, I think you need a "maybe" choice. As it is right now, there is no way in hell I'd pay $300 fee for Ultra. It's just not going to happen.

If there was no "install fee", I'd consider Ultra at its current price point. Not a definite that I'd get it, but I'd at least weigh the cost vs the service.

I've been quite happy with my 30/5 Boost connection that while I would always enjoy more bandwidth, I have what I need right now.
--
"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy." - George Carlin
reply

thender @ 23rd Oct 04:17PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

I am surprised at the results.

So far it seems like they have a justifiable reason to charge the $300 fee!
--
Macbook repair in NYC
reply

sbalea @ 24th Oct 10:02AM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

I voted yes, because the $300 fee was the main reason for me not getting it the first day it came out. However, I would not get it if it cost more than $100/mo. $99/mo and maybe $35 for a tech visit is acceptable, more than that is just not worth it for me.
reply

Shamayim @ 24th Oct 12:22PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

For weeks leading up to its start date I was anxious to become an Ultra customer. No more. No way will I pay the vig in their $300 extortion racket. Ain't gonna happen. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

I will upgrade to Ultra the minute they drop the $300 wtf charge, provided all else remains the same. Until then I'm sticking with Boost. Ultra doesn't exist.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).

reply

xocsucram @ 24th Oct 12:50PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

no brainier, its just 25 bucks a month more than im paying now for 30/5
reply

anon @ 24th Oct 01:00PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

I can't believe this is coming up again.

If someone doesn't want to pay they don't have to and they won't get ultra. If they want it they pay and they will get ultra.

If a Lamborghini was 30,000 bucks instead of 200,000 I would buy one... but it's not.

And as far as fixing it, Cablevision goes WAY above and beyond what Verizon would EVER do. IF you don't believe it get any Verizon services and call in for a trouble call. I'm sure there are people that will argue this but Verizon customer service sucks ( worse than Cablevision ) and trying to get them out is a nightmare.
reply

thender @ 24th Oct 03:12PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

said by againwthis :

And as far as fixing it, Cablevision goes WAY above and beyond what Verizon would EVER do. IF you don't believe it get any Verizon services and call in for a trouble call. I'm sure there are people that will argue this but Verizon customer service sucks ( worse than Cablevision ) and trying to get them out is a nightmare.

I called verizon at 3 AM asking them to release my IP in 2006 when my linux router crashed.

a) They answered the phone at 3 AM.

b) The person I spoke to knew what an IP was.

c) They didn't care that I was using a homebrewed router.

At least two of those three will not be true for cablevision.

When I paid for 30/5, I got 31/9.5. When I paid for 20/20, I got 20/20. WIth cablevision, when I pay for 30/5, I get 20/5. And no response at all to trouble tickets.

Also, register.
--
Macbook repair in NYC
reply

anon @ 24th Oct 05:38PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

If you have a static IP with Cablevision they would do the same thing.

Cablevison has 24 hour a day. 365 day a year Customer Service.

Any one who deals with OOL know what an IP is.

Many customers use their own router.

If you required a Verizon tech to visit your house I would have loved to see what would have happened.
reply

DownTheShore @ 24th Oct 07:59PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

No. I have yet to get the basic speeds they advertise. I don't want to pay extra just to not get Ultra speeds.
reply

Calendarman @ 25th Oct 12:37AM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

Its usually a little slower than this, sometimes 75/13, but worth every penny of the $ 300.00 when i need to upload large files to my offsite server.
URL=http://www.speedtest.net]

[/URL]
reply

thender @ 25th Oct 12:43AM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

I wish they could match FIOS's 20 mbps upload on the package that costs half as much :(
--
Macbook repair in NYC
reply

StreetSpirit @ 25th Oct 04:28AM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

said by Jeffrey :

For the sake of discussion, I think you need a "maybe" choice. As it is right now, there is no way in hell I'd pay $300 fee for Ultra. It's just not going to happen.

If there was no "install fee", I'd consider Ultra at its current price point. Not a definite that I'd get it, but I'd at least weigh the cost vs the service.

I've been quite happy with my 30/5 Boost connection that while I would always enjoy more bandwidth, I have what I need right now.

Exactly what Jeff said. I'd like to also add that based on the performance of my two BOOST lines and all the bandwidth problems during peak hours (and otherwise) does not inspire $300 worth of confidence in me.

I think it wasn't the best idea to use only three channels for downstream, especially one of them being BOOST. I also question my need for 100 mbit downstream. Sure, it'd be nice, but for me upstream is more important, and due to no upstream channel binding just yet, it would be a bit silly to shell out $300 bucks.

I'll wait a bit and see how things develop... And for the record, there are several ways Cablevision could have gone with this $300 dollar thing. A non-refundable, "keep the service or else" fee is certainly not an optimum way to treat your highest tier residential customers.

How about having it be refundable after a year of service, or pay for the last three months of service in a 12 month service period. Heck, there's a bunch of ways they could have insured people don't "dip and try". An arbitrary $300 dollar fee isn't one of them.

Besides, if they look at my account, they'll see 15 years of unquestioned paying of bills, without skipping a single bill. Sure there were times I received credit or contested some charge, but tacking on a bogus fee to those who are most likely to be your oldest customers and would like to check out your newest tech is... as Penn & Teller would say... Bullshit.

$300 buck fee = another form of a contract. Who are we kidding.
reply

Agent Smith @ 25th Oct 11:42AM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

Its not 20mb no more for mostly all its 22-25mb up or the 30-35mb up plan.
reply

thender @ 25th Oct 05:05PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

God how I wish FIOS served my new living area. D:
reply

DVOOR8 @ 1st Nov 07:54PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

said by DownTheShore :

No. I have yet to get the basic speeds they advertise. I don't want to pay extra just to not get Ultra speeds.

Hell yeah, me too!!
reply

Network Guy @ 2nd Nov 02:25PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

said by thender :

I am surprised at the results.

So far it seems like they have a justifiable reason to charge the $300 fee!

There's plenty of stupid people in the five boroughs. No surprise there either.
reply

margaf77 @ 2nd Nov 05:00PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

From what Im experiencing with my boost, I wouldnt even think of it. They cant maintain 30/5 with any regularity, Id hate to see what they do with ultra. I have a feeling Id be ultra screwed.
reply

anon @ 2nd Nov 06:27PM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

The argument of optimum not having contracts is moot because guess what? THEY HAVE CONTRACTS! Granted these are not mandatory but you get a discount for signing up for a year (free ipod, $200 gift card, ect). So couldn't the logic used for these contracts be extended to the ultra tier? A good example would be an outrageous ETF if cancelled before one year. I don't believe the fee is going away but I have seen people that claim to cablevision techs using reasoning such as "cablevision does not use contracts" to justify why there is no alternative to the $300 fee, which is simply untrue.
reply

RARPSL @ 3rd Nov 12:00AM:
Re: Would you have ultra if not for the $300 activation fee?

said by margaf77 :

From what I'm experiencing with my boost, I wouldn't even think of it. They can't maintain 30/5 with any regularity, I'd hate to see what they do with ultra. I have a feeling I'd be ultra screwed.

So long as there are minimal Ultra Users on your node, you will get better/faster performance with Ultra since you have access to 2 Dedicated (or shared with only a few other Ultra Users) Channels. With Boost you are sharing the SINGLE channel with ALL (up to 30-60?) the Boost users on your node.
reply