Really Misleading Ads From Broadband Providers 256
Bourdain writes "Gizmodo has put together a good compilation of the — seemingly almost criminally — misleading (largely plain wrong) advertising from our favorite local monopolies. My personal favorite is from AT&T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook."
I love some of their plans (Score:5, Insightful)
"Max"
"Max Plus"
"Max Turbo"
Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?
Re:I love some of their plans (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, for that matter, "turbo".
Although the all-time ridiculously overstated product name has to be the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth.
pice you pay for a connected world... (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad part (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:0_0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:12 mpbs for online games!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
For most people "Email" means logging in and downloading a bunch of humorous and/or motivatinal PPS files so they're not too far off the mark when they say 3mbps minimum.
No difference in cars (Score:5, Insightful)
This is /., so we need some car comparisons...
My gf claims she needs a 250hp (at the rear wheel) V6 in her commuter car so she can "get on the highway easier." She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.
I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes (they go 2-3x a year). A rented SUV would be much cheaper.
So why wouldn't the telcos use the same tactics when convincing their customers to purchase something that they really don't need? People are buying dual/quad core CPUs with 4GB of RAM just to surf the web and upload pics to flickr and facebook.
Re:The sad part (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:12 mpbs for online games!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see any technical reason not to offer symmetric packages. I've always assumed it's to curb P2P *grumble*
American problem again. (Score:3, Insightful)
"hands off busines" crap is costing you people time and money. because there are not enough tough regulations, corporations often can get away with scamming customers. to the extent that they dare put 'you cant sue us' clauses in contracts.
that "hands off business" thing really has to end. scamming, screwing people is not business, anyone using that excuse to defend such actions is a bastard.
Re:pice you pay for a connected world... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US we are still in stone age compared to 3rd world countries like Korea when it comes to bandwidth.
That phrase... I don't think it means what you think it means...
No, they just don't want it used all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference. It turns out that one of the great things about packet switched links is as you get more and more people, you can share bandwidth further. What I mean is that if I as a single person want a fast link, say 10mbps, I have to get a 10mbps link. However, turns out that I can have another person (my roommate) on that link and it'll still be about equally fast for both of us. We don't use it all the time, and as such 10mbps is just about as fast for two as it is for one. We don't need 20mbps just because there's another person.
This holds true as you go up the chain. This also allows for ISPs to sell access to consumers for cheaper than what it costs them. An OC-3 (155mbps) to a Tier-1 provider can run you $30,000/month or more. By the numbers that means that a 10mbps connection from that would cost about $2,000/month. However, if you oversubscribe it, sell more bandwidth than you have, you can lower the cost. Turns out this works well, since it is still fast for everyone. People get cheap connections for a low cost.
Ok well the problem is this all breaks down if people try to use their connection full blast 24/7. Because they are using it all the time, it saps bandwidth from others. The sharing only works on the assumption that everyone doesn't use it full blast all the time. The load is sporadic.
In the case of the OC-3, suppose you sell 10mb connections at $50/month, and you make $10/month profit on each. That means you need 600 subscribers. However, if they all tried to use their connections full blast, they'd only get about 260kbps each. For customers to maintain fast access, usage needs to be sporadic, which it normally will be.
That's the problem. They are ok with you using your speed. They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max (which people who go nuts on torrents do). If you want that, you have to pay more (business accounts usually offer that, mine does). You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.
You find this even in company LAN/WANs. We have gigabit ethernet at work. Gig right to your desktop. It's nice. However, it is only that fast if people use it as needed and don't run their connections full blast all the time. Reason is our switches only have gig uplinks. So there'll be anywhere form 1-24 computers with gig links that have gig back to the floor switches. Those switches also have gig links. So you then have 48 rooms that all have gig back to the building switch. That then has a gig link back to the core, so the whole building, all 700 computers or so, only has 1gb back to the core. As such if everyone tried to use their full 1gig all the time across the core, it'd go rather slow for everyone. That doesn't happen though. People get what they need and then their usage falls idle, making it fast for everyone despite the oversubscription.
It's also the only way to do it. There is no way we could afford the network equipment to give everyone dedicated gig bandwidth. It would take room switches from little $100-200 gig jobs to $3000+ switches that have 1-2 10gb uplinks. Floor switches wouldn't be $3000 gig pizza box Ciscos, they'd be $100,000 modular blade routers loaded with 10gb cards and OC-768 uplinks. The core switches would probably have to be CRS-1s.
The Internet as we enjoy it, where we can get cheap access that is reasonably fast, relies on the idea of sharing bandwidth. That means we all can't use all our bandwidth all the time.
Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. If only the broadband providers were truthful in advertising what their oversubscription rates were. Might as well be up front about it.
Re:0_0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or actually serious, but I always watch and I very consistently get my full 1.5Mbps down, from my ISP at least. There are several reasons 1.5Mbps feels sluggish these days though.
1. Websites in general are a *lot* more bloated than they were 10 years ago. Dialup really isn't fast enough for even just basic web browsing any more. Imagine trying to browse nfl.com with a 56K.
2. Many websites are simply overloaded, or intentionally restrict bandwidth. A good example (of the former I hope) is Youtube. Many times I've gone to watch a video, and no matter how much bandwidth I have there, it just doesn't download fast enough to keep up. A great example of the latter is ASUS' driver server. Good luck getting anything over 10KBps from there. (Actually, good luck getting even 10KBps.)
The biggest ISP lie of all (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest ISP lie of all is that 7mbps is a fast connection. Just because it's the fastest they offer, doesn't make it fast. Rather than arguing about how fast a connection one needs to watch videos, we ought to be storming the telco office with pitch forks and torches, demanding 100mbit to the home.
Re:Totally misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
You clearly have a better understanding of the internet compared to someone who doesn't know any better. People look to advertising to guide them when they don't know what they want. If advertisements are saying "Hey, this 3mbps plan is great for social networking sites!" then that will stick in their mind when it comes to making a determination. The person making the ads understands their network, why shouldn't you trust their judgement unless they're shady? And if that's the case then why would you consider business with them in the first place?
You have to admit it's a bit silly (and a stretch) for Time Warner to even claim that you should consider the 15-30mbps plan if you're a big online shopper, or a 7mbps connection if you share a lot of photos (I guess if you share full resolution camera raws...)
Sure it's "ideal" to have that kind of bandwidth for whatever they're advertising. I mean hey if everyone just bought the best plan I'm sure their web experience would be amazing for that task. The problem is their advertisements are in fact misleading unknowing customers, and intentionally so, to get people who don't really understand the difference to pay for more and use less.
They would love it if everyone bought 30mbit plans and used it for email. They don't love it when people like me buy their plans and use it for what should be considered its intended purpose.
Re:0_0 (Score:3, Insightful)
I know ISPs will fuck with your bandwidth, but...
Actually, lag injection doesn't sound that far-fetched given the quality of most ISPs.
Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time (Score:1, Insightful)
That's the problem. They are ok with you using your speed. They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max (which people who go nuts on torrents do). If you want that, you have to pay more (business accounts usually offer that, mine does). You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.
I am not going to get a business account just because I like to stream Netflix and Hulu during my waking computing hours. It is a paradigm of "home use". Internet streaming offers more variety of programming than local broadcast, and for less than cable.
They are not okay with me using my speed. My bandwidth has been capped and uncapped because of my complaints.
And let's not forget that ISPs have constantly whined that the bottleneck/most expensive part of the network to upgrade was "the last mile". So they piggybacked on cable TV and telephone lines, at little cost to themselves.
Suggestion: Don't accept abuse. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Suggestion: Don't accept abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's social engineering. The corporations have been getting the last two generations accustomed to their dishonesty. No one cares anymore, unless and until a health issue is involved. Then, no one cares until some activist watchdog screams to the courts. Americans in particular, and earthmen in general are placid little sheep, willing to accept anything the advertisers throw at them.
The better question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Suggestion: Don't accept abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's outrage fatigue. There are so many scummy things going on, you don't know where to start, where to focus. And there's not much agreement on just what is both scummy and important. Is pornography a worse problem than corporate dishonesty? What about child porn? Then there are many people out there trying to whip up outrage for their own ends. Big Media and the Republicans are especially prone to trying such, and falling for it too. Should Clinton have been impeached over Lewinsky? Scummy, yes, but was it important? The Republicans kept asking where was our outrage? There was such a load of fake dudgeon over that.
I find corporate dishonesty and irresponsibility and their reckless disregard, misunderstanding, and abuse of science far more troubling than the myriad sordid little affairs involving the powerful and famous. I recall the CEO of a major air conditioning manufacturer joking that if Global Warming was real, then he liked it because it would be good for his business. And Exxon taking a leaf from Big Tobacco, and making a fool's calculation that sowing confusion and delay over Global Warming was good for their business. Marketing has long since crossed the line. The auto mechanic tries to suggest your car needs extensive repairs, tries to play on fears of a breakdown, and the automakers and dealerships sure don't mind as you might instead go for a new car. The lawn care industry would have you plant the worst possible grass for your climate and have you think everything else is a weed so that you must extensively water, fertilize, apply herbicide, and wear out equipment faster. Big Pharma is always exhorting you to "Ask your doctor about" the latest miracle brand name pill. And so on. Lately, we have the finance industry still daring to suggest that they have to pay outrageous compensation, advancing the pathetic pretext that they'll lose their best people if they don't. These are merely the obvious whoppers that aren't fooling many, and that make easy fodder for comedy news shows. What's scary is you know there just has to be a whole lot of other, sneakier lies that have yet to be uncovered.
Re:crimnals (Score:3, Insightful)
Every Western (and I am sure most Eastern :)) country has a similar law, the trouble is not legislative.