Atlantic Broadband doing the same as Rogers, filed complaint with the FTC

[richardwagner]

Filed a complaint with the FTC against Atlantic Broadband for throttling my bandwidth, among other things. I expect nothing to happen, less under the current administration. This is now a country by the corporations for the corporations. Constituents worth nothing, unless, of course, they use their minds and vote for their best interest and not for the pockets of a few. Anyway this is the complaint.

:::::::::::::::::::::

Atlantic Broadband offers, among it services, Cable TV, Internet and Phone(VOIP based). They offer a tiered internet service, for which I pay for the maximun bandwidth their offer, 5 mbs download/256 kbs upload.

The reason I pay for this service is to do video conferencing, white boarding, VOIP, P2P and other things that are bandwidth intensive. I use the service, for general communications, studying and research, business, and entertainment.

They introduced in their Terms of Service, which they can change, unilaterally, at any time, according to them, a clause where they can restrict at wish a subscriber's bandwidth if the subscriber uses it 'too much.'

As a result, my bandwidth intensive applications, which used to work perfectly, are now basically unusable.

I asked them the question 'Am I paying for bandwidth or traffic?' I've been sold bandwidth and I am still waiting for a response from them.

All my aplication using a good part of the bandwidth I purchase from them (like VOIP, videoconferencing, white boarding using a P2P protocol, like, in example, Skype) are throttled to a minimum bandwidth, all my applications that generate substantial iddle bandwidth, bandwidth they can resell (like browsers, news clients and e mail) works acceptable. Skype, a P2P based VOIP communications service, property of eBay, is, by the way, in direct competition with their expensive VOIP telephone service.

In addition, they are not giving me credit for a period in which my building was closed due a fire.

Also, I have collectors calling me, charging me for three months of service after they failed to disconnect me from a previous address, from which I moved three month before they started to collect and had no debt with them (and this after connecting me to my current address).

[Me Here]

Good luck sincerely from us all here Richard.  We've all seen this type of activity and its very difficult to deal with especially for the account holders of said ISP accounts..

Do let us know what comes of this and if there is anything we here can do to help.

[richardwagner]

Thank you for the support. i know is a very difficult road to travel through. However, if all the affected subscribers, filled complaints with very similar wording, dealing with known and mainstream P2P applications like Skype, property of eBay and competing for bandwidth and services, it may have some effect. This is a numbers game, a lone wolf will have a difficult time, but a big pack will by sure be noticed, especially after a big known business is affected. The sound quality of P2P based Skype is now terrible.

May be regulating the Internet is anathema, but, most of those keeping the government out, are those who abuse their users and clients, and in any case, the government has been in from the inception of the internet and uses it for many reasons beyond the initial ARPA (and, trust me, is there in full force). So, regulating it is just a mere formality, may be is good that it is regulated, with visible and accountable checks and balances, as any telecom is.

I'm not a fan of government intervention but, let be the so called commies, or the fuhrer's right winger fans. I,know first hand, however, that the closest thing to a perfect market that currently exists, the global financial markets, are the most regulated environments in the world.

At least, the government in the USA, even if is a government by the corporations for the corporations trying to keep the slaves in line, still has a bill of rights, a theory of balance of interests, private property  and fight of factions; the business stablishment that actually do the visible controlling of the net, for its own profit, does not.  Where will be the equillibrium point in the trade off, I don't know.

At least, places where the net is in a monopolistic or oligopolistic environment, can be legally subject to part of the legal theories regarding this. I'm not an atorney, I'm an economist, who, as a hobby composes classical music, but the principle is and comes from there.

Hopefully , the coded message within, can create a tide that moves things...

[SamSeeSam]

They introduced in their Terms of Service, which they can change, unilaterally, at any time, according to them, a clause where they can restrict at wish a subscriber's bandwidth if the subscriber uses it 'too much.'

They ought be blindfolded and kicked in front of the firing squad for terms like that..

Also, I have collectors calling me, charging me for three months of service after they failed to disconnect me from a previous address, from which I moved three month before they started to collect and had no debt with them (and this after connecting me to my current address).

Daylight robbery.... That's what it is, a Daylight robbery..

Hope all goes well for you....

Cheers

[richardwagner]

Yeap, these corporation is a thief.

Curiously, that's what the banks do with your deposits, and average the daily amount of agregate funds and invest and lend, demend deposits (checking accounts) being the riskier and more volatile for this maneuvering. In this case the government require from the bank to give the money to any account holder that request it on demand, instantly. Not doing so is a very serious crime, in fact is so serious that the fed can intervene if the things becomee so bad that is even beyond the law, just to avert  a panic, even a domino effect, so banks use extreme prudency regarding the use of this monies. Generally thye avoid to lend beyond the fed imposed 'required reserves' and when they fail to keep the full amount of reserves, those bans with more money lend them (the window fed rate, as the last resort, then the fed funds rate, and so on).

The ISPs allocate the bandwidth you pay for also, but, instead of being obligated by the government, they just use a clause telling you that can restrict your bandwidth if you use it so much that they cannot make money on you. So when you use all the bandwith you pay for they lose the chance of making money on you. Many hide behind the words 'up to.'  Is just plain thievery.

May be a similar thing can be implemented for the ISPs. Even a bandwidth trading market may emerge as a consequence of this, as happens in energy and carbon credits.

I've been invited to the board of a start up Wi Max company, may be this could be a new kid in town that can grow to a 1000 pound gorrilla, competition wise.

Of course, I have to convince the tech guys about the economics of bandwidth and traffic.

BTW, my friend, you like classical music as I do. I'm hanging around in the 'ron2303' and 'The Classical Connection' chats. Big libraries over there, I have the smallest of the libraries, although many of the works I hold are large.