kengr

In October they will be instituting a 250 gig/month cap. You go over it and they terminate your account.

Of course, I bet they won't have any way for you to easily track your usage.

What I'd love to see (and likely won't) is someone taking them to court for misleading advertising. They make such a big deal about their speed but (as a simple calc will show) if you average more than 91k bytes/sec, you'll be in trouble.

I'd love to see how various ISPs would cope with having to advertise *typical* rates instead of "up to". Along with "max" average rate if they have a download cap.

If it was up to me, the "typical" rates would be based what customers could expect on the worst segments (for cable) or switches (for DSL). And they'd have to have figures for "downtime per month" presented along with performance figures for the area a customer was in before the customer signed. \

Why? So that they'd have a *real* incentive to upgrade their systems.

Oh my. Just imagine if they had to report *median* figures and describe them as "half the customers get worse than this, half get better" (or something equivalent but truthful.

For those of you not familiar with statistics, the median is different from the average. In essence, you'd take the rates each customer was getting, line them up by value and the median is the one in the middle of the list. Many times it'll be the same as the average (mean). But when it's different, that difference is often *very* important.