Suddenlink Introduces Usage Monitor - Though so far there are no caps or overages...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Suddenlink Introduces Usage Monitor
Though so far there are no caps or overages...
06:12PM Wednesday Jul 22 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: business · bandwidth · cable · caps · Suddenlink
Tipped by iansltx
Cable provider Suddenlink is one of the most poorly reviewed cable operators in our user review rankings, consistently battling with Charter Communications for the least popular cable broadband experience. Now user iansltx writes in to note the carrier has deployed a usage monitor that could be a prelude to a shift to metered billing. According to a new website, Suddenlink says they've delivered the usage tool in Clovis, New Mexico, but have no immediate plans for caps or overages:
Click for full size
(imposing overages per gigabyte) is not part of our current plan. Our only goal at this time is to help the few customers whose usage is well above (two to three times higher than) the typical range to identify the reasons for that high usage and take steps to protect and secure their computers and accounts.
"Typical usage" is defined as up to 21GB per month for users on their 1Mbps tier, up to 34GB for users on their 8Mbps tier, and up to 66GB for users on their 10Mbps tier. The carrier says that just one out of every 100 customers in Clovis has usage that is "well above" average. As with many carriers thinking about caps and overages, Suddenlink thinks e-mails are a useful metric when talking about consumption, proclaiming that their definition of normal usage allows you to send "1.5 million emails."

Given Time Warner Cable's metered billing PR disaster last April, Suddenlink may be taking things very slowly, giving users ample time to understand how much they consume before moving forward. After consumers reacted poorly to caps as low as 1GB with overage fees as high as $2 per gigabyte, Time Warner Cable backed off their plan -- stating that customers needed "education" before the plan could move forward.

Related:
  1. Customer Battles Time Warner Overages
  2. Mac Fans Lament Broadband Meters
  3. Cogeco Unveils 50Mbps Tier
  4. Comcast Usage Meter Still A No Show
  5. Suddenlink Brings DOCSIS 3.0 To Texas
  6. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
  7. Cox Raises Their Usage Caps
  8. Comcast Still Fighting FCC Throttling Sanction
Links: New Topic
Forums »

inferno @ 22nd Jul 04:30PM:
Well.... I would get terminated the first month...

I downloaded more than that just using my Directv-DVR for 1080p movies... Why can't these companies upgrade their out-dated equipment to provide MORE services instead of capping using old equipment... what a joke...
reply
fatmanskinny @ 22nd Jul 04:44PM:
Karl cracks me up!!!

Cable provider Suddenlink is one of the most poorly reviewed cable operators in our user review rankings, consistently battling with Charter Communications for the least popular cable broadband experience.


ROFL! The beginning is hilarious. Good story, Karl. Thumbs up to you!
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil.
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jul 04:55PM:
Re: Karl cracks me up!!!

It's interesting to note Charter has jumped several notches in recent months, despite the bankruptcy.
reply
robl27 @ 22nd Jul 04:56PM:
RIP internet

It was nice to know you.. when caps and charges come to cox, i'm either going to dialup, or dsl.

no one can afford this.

-Rob
reply
anon @ 22nd Jul 04:57PM:
Re: Well.... I would get terminated the first month...

I too download a lot of on-demand stuff with my DirecTV DVR. I am hoping TWC doesn't implement low caps here. My only other choice for HSI is SLOOOOW(in comparison) DSL 4-5Mb for the same price as TWC's 10Mb
reply
winsyrstrife @ 22nd Jul 05:12PM:
E-mail...

"Suddenlink thinks e-mails are a useful metric when talking about consumption, proclaiming that their definition of normal usage allows you to send "1.5 million emails."


Whoever at Suddenlink made that comment, deserves a good stiff backhand.
--
"Suddenly everything is fainting, falling from a broken ladder's rung. There's a jolt exhilarating from the phone I'm holding...
I hear the words of what I'll become, how eager the hands that reach for love." - Blind Melon - New Life
reply
Vertickle @ 22nd Jul 05:17PM:
Re: Karl cracks me up!!!

Then replace Charter with Knology as a bottom dweller...
reply
Hookem99 @ 22nd Jul 05:19PM:
Yikes!

Before switching to u-verse, I had Suddenlink. Their prices are high(nearly twice what I pay ATT for the same speed), their service quality was sporadic(suddenly, no link), and customer service was terrible. If they were to implement caps... whoa. There is a Suddenlink rep that posts here occasionally, I wonder if he has anything to say?
--
Women think they are clever just because they can fake an orgasm for a relationship, whats the big deal a man can fake a whole relationship for an orgasm!!!!
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 22nd Jul 05:23PM:
Re: E-mail...

said by winsyrstrife :

"Suddenlink thinks e-mails are a useful metric when talking about consumption, proclaiming that their definition of normal usage allows you to send "1.5 million emails."


Whoever at Suddenlink made that comment, deserves a good stiff backhand.
Backhand? Try baseball bat :).
reply
hayabusa3303 @ 22nd Jul 05:25PM:
Re: RIP internet

said by robl27 :

It was nice to know you.. when caps and charges come to cox, i'm either going to dialup, or dsl.
att is already playing with metering in 2 towns already for dsl and talking about expanding it.
reply
hayabusa3303 @ 22nd Jul 05:28PM:
great

one more isp to start this shit. (pardon the french)

Start canceling service people.
reply
Karl Bode @ 22nd Jul 05:47PM:
Re: Karl cracks me up!!!

Their move is fairly recent. I'd been watching Suddenlink and Charter duke it out for a long, long time. I imagine the cable basement championship is not yet over! We'll have to think of some prizes.
reply
Hpower @ 22nd Jul 05:49PM:
Stupid meter

What a joke. 21GB GB typical use in a MONTH? LOL! I downloaded that in like 2 days watching shows like Top Gear and The Soup. This whole usage meter is just bullshet. Only way to fight it is to get the highest speed tier the ISP has that is uncapped and unmetered....or providers.

I really hope that ISP's will do that so that those who have more need for bandwidth will be able to use their connections without worrying so much about their usage.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually.
reply
anon @ 22nd Jul 05:54PM:
tx

Just got done talking with SL about service about 1 hr from Clovis. They have 20 meg service there, which is DOCSIS 3.0 - they just haven't announced it yet nationwide.

He also said that the usage monitor is just the beginning, and they are about to start 3rd party apps to monitor/report usage to the authorities.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jul 06:09PM:
Re: Well.... I would get terminated the first month...

You wouldn't necessarily get terminated. If you were in the 132-200 GB range Suddenlink would probably give you a call and ask what's going on.

Kudos to SL for not doing anything with the meter (charging for overages), showing real stats (hours of YouTube, GB amounts that aren't simply "our average is 3GB") and generally being transparent about things. Wonder when they'll push this to other areas?

Seriously, it actually seems like a reasonable solution: let everyone know what their usage is, then ask high-usage customers what the heck is going on.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jul 06:10PM:
Re: Karl cracks me up!!!

I know I know! A 512k cable connection with PowerBoost on an Ambit modem, on a node shared with 1000 other users with monkies for tech support!
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jul 06:11PM:
Re: RIP internet

Reread the post. SL is not charging anyone overages.

Also, check Cox's website. They've had caps for quite awhile now. They just don't enforce 'em...yet...
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jul 06:13PM:
Re: E-mail...

Meh, some people (particularly in areas SL tends to serve) use their connections for e-mail only. Not me, but just sayin'

Then again, more and more people are using online e-mail, which isn't as tight of a system as POP3. Since they're pulling down the UI (and ads) with their e-mail, I'll bet the usage counts are a whole lot higher for those 1.5 million e-mails.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jul 06:14PM:
Re: great

Uh, they're not charging overages, and they're not disconnecting customers. I honestly don't see any problem here.
reply
iansltx @ 22nd Jul 06:21PM:
Re: Stupid meter

1. You're not typical. Neither am I. When I'm at school the rest of the family uses about 6-10 GB per month. Granted, the internet here sucks and they'd probably use closer to 20GB if they had a 1 Mbit connection...which is exactly what SL is showing.
2. If you're using tons of interwebs you're likely on their highest plan, which has a higher average usage pattern.
3. "fighting it" wouldn't be the correct term to describe going to the highest, uncapped tier the provider has. SL doesn't cap anyone (except in speed) and upgrading is exactly what they want you to do. You cost them more money (less subscribers per node = node splits etc.) so it's nice of you to amortize your costs on their network by getting the fastest tier you can.
4. Some ISPs do offer uncapped tiers alongside capped ones. Comcast, CableOne and (if they had pushed their plans through) TWC would be porivders whose biz services aren't capped, but whose residential services are. Cox has no explicit cap on their 50/5 DOCSIS 3 tier, and Charter has none on their 60/5 tier, though to my knowledge neither provider is enforcing their explicit caps anyway.

Also, Suddenlink now has a nice fat fiber ring in West Texas, so they can pipe bandwidth as needed to areas that need bandwidth. Not sure how big thier pipe is (I'd guess a few gigabits) but it seems to be big enough that they're merely notifying people of their usage and asking very heavy users (3x their published figures) what's going on, rather than cutting them off entirely.
reply
hayabusa3303 @ 22nd Jul 06:42PM:
Re: great

said by iansltx :

Uh, they're not charging overages, and they're not disconnecting customers. I honestly don't see any problem here.
umm its a step TOWARD it. :hmm:
reply
Pete Abel @ 22nd Jul 06:43PM:
Re: tx

tx01 wrote: "they are about to start 3rd party apps to monitor/report usage to the authorities"

I'm with Suddenlink and that statement is misleading. We do follow applicable laws with respect to illegal downloads. We're required to. But that process has nothing to do with the online usage tool mentioned in the article.
reply
cameronsfx @ 22nd Jul 06:49PM:
Re: Karl cracks me up!!!

Cox has them, but, if they try usage, I will sue under several different federal laws.

Trust me, people like me and even lawyers and law professors are proffering a complaint that will not be denied. And, yes, selling a service as "unlimited" is fraud. We are working on it. More than likely, it will be CA, NY or FL legal issue.

As far as limited, the overage charges are basically fraud since the actual cost might be $.05 a gig.

I know for a fact Google and Amazon.com are working on suing ISPs for these stupid caps. A small ISP is the ideal target.
reply
monkeyslew @ 22nd Jul 06:52PM:
Comast?

A crappy ISP like Suddenlink can deploy a usage meter, but the giant Comcast can't???
reply
Pete Abel @ 22nd Jul 07:00PM:
Suddenlink Points

I'm with the company. A few things to keep in mind ...

Volume of emails is only one sample usage "metric" we offer. The full text of our online Q&A on this topic -- »www.suddenlink.com/usage/faq/ -- reads as follows:

What is "Internet usage"?

Much like electric usage is measured in kilowatts, and water usage is measured in gallons, Internet usage is measured in gigabytes (GB). For reference, if someone used 25 GB, she'd be able to send or receive more than 1.5 million emails, or download more than 6,500 songs, or watch more than 150 hours of YouTube videos.


No, we do not think those are the only online activites in which our customers engage -- those examples are just that, examples intended to illustrate a larger point.

Also, the "typical usage" marks we published are not fictional or discretionary; they're based on an analysis of the actual volume flowing through our pipes versus number of customers. Some of those customers, I'm sure, are well above the typical mark, some well below it.

Also, "iansltx" suspects we're simply:

notifying people of their usage and asking very heavy users (3x their published figures) what's going on, rather than cutting them off entirely


That's very close. We DO notify customers (only four out of several thousand since we started this project) when they're around 3x over the typical mark, and that's done in the context of the possibility that high usage is sometimes not the users' intent, i.e, sometimes it's caused by factors unknown and potentially detrimental to the user (e.g., a virus or "spyware" application might have infected a customer's computer and started generating high levels of Internet traffic, or someone else might be using a customer's Internet connection without his or her knowledge, etc.)

We then offer those customers a list of steps they can consider, to help make sure their computers and Internet accounts are protected and secure. I'm betting many of the people on this forum have already taken those steps, but you might be surprised how many people don't. So, for those around the 3x typical mark who haven't taken such steps, we're hoping this encourages them to do so.

Also -- keep in mind -- this is all just a test. I'd like to thank those who have acknowledged it as such and noted that we are in fact taking it slow on this matter AND THAT (versus what other co's have done) this is all pretty benign ... if not beneficial.

FINALLY: I won't dispute our less-than-ideal rankings on user reviews in this forum, but I would offer for your consideration the following: I've been watching and counting reviews over the course of the last few years. From mid-06 to 07 (when we assumed responsibility for most of the areas where we operate) we were running 1 positive review to every 3 negative reviews and our six month average score was in the 50% range. Since then, the ratio of positive has improved steadily, and the six month average is 10 points higher than what it was. So yes, we have room for improvement, but we are working hard to improve and steadily moving in the right direction. I hope that counts for something.
reply
Hpower @ 22nd Jul 07:05PM:
Re: Stupid meter

Whoops I used the wrong word when I said fighting it :) Yea I meant actually a solution to the caps is getting the highest speed tier that is hopefully uncapped.

I can't wait to see if Charter will actually pull their heads together and upgrade the network to handle the 60/5 BEFORE they upgrade everyone which I don't think they're smart enough to do anyway. I just really hope that when i get the 60/5 tier, that I won't be getting 10/2 speeds.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually.
reply
jchambers28 @ 22nd Jul 07:38PM:
FCC monitoring isp"s

the FCC should be monitoring these kind ISP's very closely and crack down on gouging consumers.
reply
nnaarrnn @ 22nd Jul 09:08PM:
To Sudenlink's Defense

I use Suddenlink at home, and have switched a number of my clients from the antiquated DSL around here to Suddenlink Data/Phone. Most of them have been pleased.

I had all kinds of issues, but they were ironed out (finally) and have no major complaints other than the latency caused by ALL of their traffic being piped to Texas regardless of where you're from. (i'm 1000 miles away) Kinda sucks when your left 4 dead ping is NEVER less than 200ms.

I currently purchase their 12m/768k tier for $59.99/mo. The "business class" of the same speed (1.5m upload) is $500/mo. There is no freaking way you could afford to switch to the business tier.

It seems that we have used just above 66gb total for the past month. It's just my wife and I in the house. I torrent a TV show or two from time to time, play a FEW games, work on customers PCs at the house from time to time downloading updates etc. What i'm sure is the major bandwidth consumer in my house is that we have Vista Media Center PCs in the living room and bedroom, and instead of cable we use the Netflix Media Center add-in, and now the Hulu Desktop Media Center. I'd say we're average bandwidth consumers, considering I don't know anyone under 30 that watches traditional cable anymore.
Click for full size
reply
sonicmerlin @ 22nd Jul 09:11PM:
Re: Karl cracks me up!!!

The actual cost is likely less than a cent per gig. It's estimated ISP costs are only $1/month/customer.

In South Korea you can get 2Mbit DSL for $3/month. In India you can get it for $4/month.
reply
nnaarrnn @ 22nd Jul 09:13PM:
This is how happy people are with suddenlink

»Punishment for Calling in a Bomb Threat
reply
Dampier @ 23rd Jul 12:43AM:
Suddenly A Scam

said by Pete Abel :

I'm with the company. A few things to keep in mind ...
Also -- keep in mind -- this is all just a test. I'd like to thank those who have acknowledged it as such and noted that we are in fact taking it slow on this matter AND THAT (versus what other co's have done) this is all pretty benign ... if not beneficial.

With all due respect, "tests" have a nasty habit of becoming reality soon enough. "Benign" and "beneficial" are words that I'd associate more with the company's perspective than that of consumers. No provider spends time and resources to develop usage measuring tools without having a plan at some point to begin setting limits on consumption, with threats of service suspension or overlimit fees and penalties being the result of "going over the limit."

I've seen this all before, not from one, but several broadband providers, two in my own area. Suddenlink may be slightly cleverer in its approach, and more cautious about its ultimate goal to implement Internet Overcharging schemes, but the recipe is always the same:

1) It follows the usual pattern of framing the issue around the concept of broadband data being similar to gas, electric, or water service, using the language of "meters" to measure consumption, and inevitably, the talking point of "customers paying for what they use."

The fact is, broadband service is -not- at all like gas, electric or water service.

Consumers can always use this simple test to see if they are being manipulated - does the provider compare its broadband service pricing and measurement to its closest cousin - telephone service? No? Then it's a ploy to extract more money from customer wallets, sooner or later.

Cable operators don't like to talk about the fact their networks most closely resemble telephone networks, which deal in the same kind of data traffic that broadband networks do. To do so risks the inevitable, justified question from consumers -- why are you measuring and/or billing me for my broadband usage when I am now paying flat rate for my telephone line?

Broadband costs are declining, not increasing. Responsible network investments to manage and improve broadband service is the price of doing a very profitable business. It sounds like Suddenlink could be spending a lot more time improving its service and getting their customer ratings up than creating schemes that I guarantee will eventually cost customers more... potentially a lot more, for their broadband service.

2) Users are "educated" about their average consumption, and then when the caps and tiers show up, they are deceived into thinking that they will only penalize those "heavy downloaders" that providers routinely turn into "us vs. them" scenarios. Of course, today's "reasonable" usage is tomorrow's unreasonably restrictive limit. Such limits have a habit of becoming slow to move upwards, and even more frequently are reduced, subjecting more and more customers to overlimit fees which inevitably also turn up as part of the scheme.

Suddenlink hopes to de-fang customer opposition by suggesting the majority of customers will not be impacted by any future capping scheme.

3) The "sounds like a lot" statistics that always accompany these schemes always tell consumers they can send a jillion e-mails or download thousands of MP3 songs. Few venture too far into the impact such limits have on online video and file transfer networks. YouTube statistics are irrelevant to a growing number of consumers who may spend time there, but are not watching the long-form television programming and movies, in increasingly high quality, that more and more turn to these days. Given the choice of watching "Sam trashes his bike v2.0" on YouTube or the latest episode of a popular hour long drama in HD on sites like Hulu or Amazon (or Netflix's set top box), most people aren't going to be spending a lot of time with Sam.

In the absence of any other online activity, statistics which are limited to one application, as Suddenlink offers, are not relevant to today's broadband user. How many HD movies can consumers watch while also sending e-mail, downloading songs and files, and doing online backups with a 25GB monthly limit? Reveal that, and consumers will take notice and get angry fast.

I do appreciate your statistics about online usage on Suddenlink, as they are wildly out of sync with the overwhelming majority of much larger broadband providers who have been feeding us much lower "typical usage" numbers for more than a year now. Just a year ago, Frontier Communications was telling us the majority of their DSL customers were barely breaking 1GB of usage per month. Time Warner Cable was putting their numbers around the 5GB mark for "average customers." To see "up to 21GB" of usage for your light/low speed tier is an incredible departure from those numbers, which either will earn you bonus points for honesty or a spanking from the national trade association and lobbyists for letting the cat out of the bag - broadband usage is higher than they let on, and they refuse to allow access to the raw data to prove their contention that the majority use far less.

Honestly, we have never felt there was anything wrong with contacting customers who rack up an enormous amount of usage, because customers can become unknowing spam merchants or one of the kids is running peer to peer software 24/7 leaving the rest of the household wondering why their connection is so slow.

But unless Suddenlink is prepared to be happy with the potential answer that their customers are simply using their broadband connection to take advantage of the variety of high bandwidth services that justify a subscription to "High Speed Online" service, and will guarantee customers that no usage caps or tiered pricing based on consumption is forthcoming, Suddenlink will take a place on our "bad actors" list of providers who are laying the foundation to eventually overcharge their customers for broadband service.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com
reply
iansltx @ 23rd Jul 01:42AM:
Re: Karl cracks me up!!!

Where in those areas though? Would you like to move?
reply
iansltx @ 23rd Jul 01:44AM:
Re: tx

Wait, they have DOCSIS 3.0 available there? What's the price? What's the average usage, as it would fit in the Clovis, NM usage table?
reply
iansltx @ 23rd Jul 01:51AM:
Re: Suddenly A Scam

There are a few things that SL is doing right here. While the precedent of a bandwidth meter isn't that great from the perspective of the crap TWC tried to pull, SL isn't charging for overages (Sunflower Broadband anyone?) and they appear to be working on a sliding scale where 99.9% of customers won't be affected now, and won't be affected later.

While costs are dropping for internet access etc., a few heavy users might mean the difference between an (expensive) node split and not. If everyone's using 100GB, 200GB or 500GB a month then a company should absolutely adapt to that. However if I'm treating my cable connection like a T1 (hint: T1s cost more) and everyone else isn't we've got a problem on our hands.
reply
iansltx @ 23rd Jul 01:53AM:
Re: FCC monitoring isp"s

Whou's gouging? Suddenlink isn't capping/throttling anyone. Normally I wouldn't come to the defense of a company who has the audacity to sell a 1.5 Mbit symmetric service to businesses over DOCSIS and charge $225 for the privelege, or who doesn't offer uploads over 512-768k in the majority of their footprint, but they're not charging overages like TWC or slapping down low caps like TWC, CableOne et al.
reply
robl27 @ 23rd Jul 03:53AM:
Re: Suddenlink Points

i'm glad im not a suddendead customer, we need fios spread nationwide.. that will shut this shit up
reply
Corydon @ 23rd Jul 04:16AM:
Re: Suddenlink Points

Yeah, Clovis NM is next on Verizon's list I'm sure.
reply
anon @ 23rd Jul 03:40PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
kb0rpj @ 23rd Jul 08:16PM:
suddenlink limits.

while none of know the plans of course, i would like to see suddenlink do this.. ok, if your going to give us a meter, show us how we compare to the rest of the area.. ie. "kb0rpj you've used 1.4GB this month, which is 18% of the typically usage in your area"

I'm also guessing that the limits/averages would be dependant on the areas too, i can see Xville might use a lot more bandwidth per month that people in Yville.
reply
linicx @ 26th Jul 06:08AM:
SL is the elephant in the living room

SL is owned by a jerkwater company in New Jersey that is supposed to have a bazillion customers. If they do it is because their customers no other choice.

If you look in the fine print you learn their blazing fast Broadband is 10X faster than dial-up. When I questioned that statement, I was told the 28.8 they used to make that statement was the de facto standard. OOOOh? Eight years ago 56K was de facto. The silly comment was made in 2007 in rural America. It was a horrid little company that had terrible customer service. Most of the time the broadband, which cost twice what AT&T charged for four times the speed was barely faster than dial-up most of the time.

Three years ago Cox sold out their mid-size market, except the areas if dense population like Oceanside, CA. Guess who bought it? It was bad when Cox had it, but it was worse after SL got their paws on it. .

SL may be dandy in New Jersey but it isn't work a shet between the California border and Mississippi River. It is the only cable company I have ever used that offered seven 24/7 religious channels, a plethora of piggy back channels and nary a C-Span. Not only that, where my cousin lives, they removed the small local station, large national stations in Tulsa, dropped Fox entirely, and used national Arkansas channels. This area of this tows was effectively cut off from receiving all Oklahoma news, all local news, and all Oklahoma weather warnings; then they shut down the local office so there isn't any place to complain.

It's just one little hick town with a geographic population of 80,000. On the other side of this town, it is served by a different cable system. They recognized the value of customers and they provided everything the cheapskate SL refused to offer and more. In this town SL is the local joke. They are losing customers to Direct-TV. Who needs them. AT&T provides the BB connectivity.

If I had my wish, the spineless City Council would run them out of town on a rail. Even that is too good them and more than they deserve with their hijack prices that shoot the moon.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC