How many gigabytes in the "unlimited" tariff?
As you know, many Internet tariffs set a monthly limit on the maximum amount of consumed traffic. In case of its excess, the traffic is considered at such tariffs that they can be called fines. What is most suspicious is that some providers do not raise this limit for years , and fines for traffic overspending have become almost the main source of income for them - such a “golden egg”, like roaming and SMS from mobile operators.
On the one hand, the provider can set any conditions, and the user signs the contract and agrees with them. On the other hand, if such revenues constitute a significant part of the ISP's profit and it stimulates the user to exceed the limit (for example, without reducing access speed when going beyond the limit and not warning about approaching the limit), then this already borders on abuse.
Two large US consumer protection organizations in the field of IT have applied to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with a request to investigate whether American Internet providers are not violating the law. Specifically, the FCC is asked to examine whether the own services of Internet providers (for example, traffic from their sites) are included in the traffic limit, how often tariffs for exceeding the limit are applied, how users are warned about exceeding the limit, and to what extent these limits are justified. as far as they are explained by the real overload of the ISP network.
The New America Foundation and Public Knowledge have stated their position in an open letter (PDF). They ask to pay special attention to the AT & T provider, which "is trying to turn traffic limits into a source of income by charging additional fees to users who exceed the limit." If this is so, human rights advocates believe, then this practice conflicts with AT & T's ability to raise the bar on traffic restrictions, even if a company increases the capacity of its channels.
')
Comcast is also criticized for this practice. At Comcast unlimited tariff a few years ago, a limit of 250 GB was introduced, but since then it has never increased, although the provider has greatly expanded the channels during this time.
This suggests an explanation that the company deliberately does not raise the traffic bar, encouraging users to get into debt. However, the same AT & T limit is even smaller: 150 GB, so Comcast looks quite normal in this sense.
It should be noted that in many more backward countries, like Canada or Russia, providers have even more draconian restrictions on “unlimited Internet”, reaching even ridiculous 20–30 GB per month, or even less, with Internet providers on blue They claim that they cannot provide more, otherwise the business will become unprofitable.
By the way, according to the competent comrades, the telecommunications industry in Russia is highly saturated with personnel from organized criminal groups, including in the top management of companies, and business conflicts here are more like criminal disassembly and are resolved only by incorrect methods. This is quite surprising, because telecoms formally refer to the high-tech IT industry, while in other IT industries nothing like this is observed, at least there is not a common thing.
On the one hand, the provider can set any conditions, and the user signs the contract and agrees with them. On the other hand, if such revenues constitute a significant part of the ISP's profit and it stimulates the user to exceed the limit (for example, without reducing access speed when going beyond the limit and not warning about approaching the limit), then this already borders on abuse.
Two large US consumer protection organizations in the field of IT have applied to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with a request to investigate whether American Internet providers are not violating the law. Specifically, the FCC is asked to examine whether the own services of Internet providers (for example, traffic from their sites) are included in the traffic limit, how often tariffs for exceeding the limit are applied, how users are warned about exceeding the limit, and to what extent these limits are justified. as far as they are explained by the real overload of the ISP network.
The New America Foundation and Public Knowledge have stated their position in an open letter (PDF). They ask to pay special attention to the AT & T provider, which "is trying to turn traffic limits into a source of income by charging additional fees to users who exceed the limit." If this is so, human rights advocates believe, then this practice conflicts with AT & T's ability to raise the bar on traffic restrictions, even if a company increases the capacity of its channels.
')
Comcast is also criticized for this practice. At Comcast unlimited tariff a few years ago, a limit of 250 GB was introduced, but since then it has never increased, although the provider has greatly expanded the channels during this time.
This suggests an explanation that the company deliberately does not raise the traffic bar, encouraging users to get into debt. However, the same AT & T limit is even smaller: 150 GB, so Comcast looks quite normal in this sense.
It should be noted that in many more backward countries, like Canada or Russia, providers have even more draconian restrictions on “unlimited Internet”, reaching even ridiculous 20–30 GB per month, or even less, with Internet providers on blue They claim that they cannot provide more, otherwise the business will become unprofitable.
By the way, according to the competent comrades, the telecommunications industry in Russia is highly saturated with personnel from organized criminal groups, including in the top management of companies, and business conflicts here are more like criminal disassembly and are resolved only by incorrect methods. This is quite surprising, because telecoms formally refer to the high-tech IT industry, while in other IT industries nothing like this is observed, at least there is not a common thing.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/119253/
All Articles