Consumer Reports: 71% Would Leave ISP That Violated Neutrality

[Tampa8]

I will believe that 71% responded by saying they would switch. But if anyone is thinking anything close to that percentage actually would I have some swamp land you might like to purchase. As some have hit upon, a high percentage of people will say they will switch or say anything but doing it is very different. I also do not believe anywhere near 71% actually have a second choice they would really consider. Either a good percentage do not have a choice at all, or it is DSL. It also assumes if there is another broadband choice that they too are not doing it.

As we are aware once fees start there is no limit. Very bad for those that are going to rely on streaming for TV that Netflix had to pay money that will be more and more just to be carried at full speed.

 

[Kraven]

People might want to switch but its a true pain in the ass to do it. Every site and company would need to be contacted to update the email address. My case, the phone number too... I'd probably just b**** and get free stuff.

 

[Tampa8]

You just swerved into something else. How long before they slow down speed to competing VOIP carriers?

 

[king3pj]

People might want to switch but its a true pain in the ass to do it. Every site and company would need to be contacted to update the email address. My case, the phone number too... I'd probably just b**** and get free stuff.

That's one of the reasons I have never used the Charter provided email address even though they have been my only broadband provider. You are much better off using a third party email provider like gmail or their competitors that you can take with you if you switch ISPs. As for the phone, you can probably port your number to a new phone service. I ported my parents landline over to vonage years ago to drastically cut their bill. They wanted no part of making the switch until they found out they could keep their number.

 

[mike123abc]

I have to agree, you have to have an email that is provider independent. Yahoo or Gmail work well. There are also mail forwarding services like pobox.com that you give out that email and set it to forward to whatever email you are currently using.

For my land line I just got a cheap VOIP service. Only reason to keep the number was that I have had it for 20 years. I really never answer it, it emails me any voicemails.

 

[Hall]

Here's what I posted at DSLReports:

71% say they would leave, 1% will actually follow-through

46% say they'd complain to the gov't, 0.1% will actually follow-through. That 0.1% who'd complain to the gov't would only do it via email or use a form letter someone else wrote up and has a tool that looks up their congressional rep for them.

78% would complain on FB/Twitter. The 78% complain on social media would also consist of a lot who will sign a silly petition at change.org too !

10% would drop broadband service, 0.1% will actually follow-through

Only the 7% who claimed they'll do nothing are being honest !​

 

[king3pj]

You just swerved into something else. How long before they slow down speed to competing VOIP carriers?

I still reject this whole idea that ISPs are going to start actively trying to ruin their product. Like others have said, who is going to pay for their more expensive fast download speeds if they start cutting everything that can take advantage of those speeds. Take away my streaming and VOIP and what do I even need broadband for? In that case I could easily ditch my fast cable connection and drop down to some budget 3Mbps plan with another ISP or maybe even dial up. The TV providers know that broadband is where their market will be in the future. Traditional TV will fade just like landlines did. If they want a piece of that market that will continue to grow while their old one is shrinking they can't actively try to piss off their customers. More and more broadband providers continue to enter the market and that will continue to happen. Some cities are actually providing broadband for free. The next town over from me is doing that already.

Even if you don't beleive any of that and you think these ISPs really will start to gimp every service that they don't own, how long do you think that will last before the government steps in? The internet is about access to information. I am confident that the government will not let a few corporations limit our country's ability to access information that is readily available to the rest of the civilized world. We bash China and other countries for restricting the internet to the parts their government approves. Now we are going to let the same thing happen here but instead of the government it will be Comcast making these choices?

I don't see that being allowed. Like I posted in the net neutrality thread, the FCC has already said they are working on a new net neutrality law. Most ISPs haven't even started gimping Netflix yet and the law is already coming. If ISPs start getting more aggressive about their throttling that will only speed the process up.

 

[king3pj]

Here's what I posted at DSLReports:

71% say they would leave, 1% will actually follow-through

46% say they'd complain to the gov't, 0.1% will actually follow-through. That 0.1% who'd complain to the gov't would only do it via email or use a form letter someone else wrote up and has a tool that looks up their congressional rep for them.

78% would complain on FB/Twitter. The 78% complain on social media would also consist of a lot who will sign a silly petition at change.org too !

10% would drop broadband service, 0.1% will actually follow-through

Only the 7% who claimed they'll do nothing are being honest !​

Not true in my case. I have other options and I would use them. I no longer have pay TV so I will be on a an ISP that doesn't take away my ability to stream video. Right now Charter is great for that. They haven't messed with my streams and I have always been happy with them. If that ever changes I do have 3 other options and luckily 2 of them don't offer TV service.

 

[avg1joe]

If download speeds are throttled people will switch. Saying anything else, in a forum that cable reps can read, is not really smart, unless you want to encourage them to throttle your speed. Think about it and post carefully.

 

[Voyager6]

I still reject this whole idea that ISPs are going to start actively trying to ruin their product. Like others have said, who is going to pay for their more expensive fast download speeds if they start cutting everything that can take advantage of those speeds. Take away my streaming and VOIP and what do I even need broadband for? In that case I could easily ditch my fast cable connection and drop down to some budget 3Mbps plan with another ISP or maybe even dial up. The TV providers know that broadband is where their market will be in the future. Traditional TV will fade just like landlines did. If they want a piece of that market that will continue to grow while their old one is shrinking they can't actively try to piss off their customers. More and more broadband providers continue to enter the market and that will continue to happen. Some cities are actually providing broadband for free. The next town over from me is doing that already.

Even if you don't beleive any of that and you think these ISPs really will start to gimp every service that they don't own, how long do you think that will last before the government steps in? The internet is about access to information. I am confident that the government will not let a few corporations limit our country's ability to access information that is readily available to the rest of the civilized world. We bash China and other countries for restricting the internet to the parts their government approves. Now we are going to let the same thing happen here but instead of the government it will be Comcast making these choices?

I don't see that being allowed. Like I posted in the net neutrality thread, the FCC has already said they are working on a new net neutrality law. Most ISPs haven't even started gimping Netflix yet and the law is already coming. If ISPs start getting more aggressive about their throttling that will only speed the process up.

All I know is that my Comcast internet cost has doubled in 4 years, even with switching to a lower tier. Netflix is virtually unwatchable in the evenings and weekends due to throttling by Comcast. I get almost perfect HD PQ when I switch to Amazon Prime or Hulu during those time periods. However, most of what I want to watch is on Netflix. Comcast WILL extract every $$$ it can from content providers and consumers.

 

[Hall]

If download speeds are throttled people will switch.

The average user won't realize their speeds are throttled. If they thinks speeds are slower than usual, they don't know who to blame.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[king3pj]

The average user won't realize their speeds are throttled. If they thinks speeds are slower than usual, they don't know who to blame.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

The average user wouldn't notice if their speeds were slower but I give them enough credit to notice constant buffering or the picture suddenly becoming a blurry mess when they have been getting HD streams for years.

 

[Yespage]

Honestly, if one company tightens the pipeline, they probably all would. After all, there is little in the way of choice.

The average user won't realize their speeds are throttled. If they thinks speeds are slower than usual, they don't know who to blame.

It can be a pain. First you need to figure out if it is your equipment/software (need to reboot the Roku? or turn off a media program on the laptop), the network, Internet connection, or the provider of the content (Fox Soccer 2 Go just sucked).

 

[TheKrell]

Well, most urban/suburban folks have two IF you count DSL. The cable company cable modem and their phone company DSL. Anything more than that, including UVerse/Fios, and you ARE lucky...

Well, I agree with the second part above. But many of us have no access to DSL, because the CO is too far away. I live inside the Washington Beltway. When I moved into my present house in 2004, I had but one option, and that was Cox. (I'm not counting satellite due to cost.) Verizon teased me for years with ads saying FIOS IS HERE! But it never made it to my neck of the woods until 2012. So, now I have a choice between Cox and Verizon. For now I stuck with Cox.

 

[king3pj]

Honestly, if one company tightens the pipeline, they probably all would. After all, there is little in the way of

Actually more ISPs are entering the market. My area has 2 that don't even offer TV services now. It wouldn't serve them any purpose to restrict streaming content. If anything they would do the opposite and heavily advertise what they are doing to steal cable customers. I think we will see more ISPs continue to emerge as we move farther into a connected world.

Plus if all the major ISPs start to act on this that will just speed up the process the FCC has started to get a new net neutrality law in the books. It would not be in the cable companies' best interest to be to aggressive with their throttling.

 

[Yespage]

Actually more ISPs are entering the market. My area has 2 that don't even offer TV services now. It wouldn't serve them any purpose to restrict streaming content. If anything they would do the opposite and heavily advertise what they are doing to steal cable customers. I think we will see more ISPs continue to emerge as we move farther into a connected world.

I'm happy for your region, having that much choice. Choice does help the market. Where I am, there is Uverse and Time Warner, then maybe Sprint.

Plus if all the major ISPs start to act on this that will just speed up the process the FCC has started to get a new net neutrality law in the books. It would not be in the cable companies' best interest to be to aggressive with their throttling.

Supreme Court ruled that the FCC overstepped its bounds from law, which means Congress has to pass a law... and right now Obama couldn't get Congress to pass a law naming the White House after Reagan.

 

[king3pj]

I'm happy for your region, having that much choice. Choice does help the market. Where I am, there is Uverse and Time Warner, then maybe Sprint.

Have you checked to see if fixed wireless is an option in your area? Some of my neighbors are using it and I have seen their setups. This is different than mobile broadband provided by cellular companies with tiny data limits. Basically they put an antenna outside on your roof and then run wire to some type of box inside. You run ethernet to a normal router just like you would from a cable modem. We used this at our office for a couple years too because it was faster than AT&T DSL. We only switched because Charter offered us a good deal on business internet that was faster than the fixed wireless.

 

[TheForce]

Yep, I'm lucky enough to have 4 broadband choices (not counting satellite or cellular). Charter cable is the best option for me as far as the speed to price ratio goes but if they start messing with my streaming I'll be gone in a heartbeat. I can go to other providers for about the same price. I would just take a hit in my download speed. Still, I'd rather have a 6Mbps open connection than a 10Gbps connection that gimps the services I use. Luckily my other options are faster than 6Mbps. They just aren't as fast as my 30Mbps Charter connection.

I don't see the difference if your fast service throttles a few services and allows faster speeds on others compared to a service that peaks out at a speed that your fast service throttles to.

I don't know any consumer that pays for the 10Gbps service, nor one who can use that speed. Only businesses that are doing large server access would have that. Therefore I assume you were just exaggerating. But that aside, around here, Comcast is the fast one by a wide margin. Next would be AT&T if you live in the right location. But AT&T is not fast enough to stream Netflix SD reliably. The others ( satellite and LTE) are even slower. If you are a serious internet user of high bandwidth, you might look into Comcast Business class. It's a little more money but offers plenty of added value. Reliable and consistent service is the most important.

 

[king3pj]

I don't see the difference if your fast service throttles a few services and allows faster speeds on others compared to a service that peaks out at a speed that your fast service throttles to.

I don't know any consumer that pays for the 10Gbps service, nor one who can use that speed. Only businesses that are doing large server access would have that. Therefore I assume you were just exaggerating. But that aside, around here, Comcast is the fast one by a wide margin. Next would be AT&T if you live in the right location. But AT&T is not fast enough to stream Netflix SD reliably. The others ( satellite and LTE) are even slower. If you are a serious internet user of high bandwidth, you might look into Comcast Business class. It's a little more money but offers plenty of added value. Reliable and consistent service is the most important.

Yeah, I was exaggerating to make a point. That point is that these fast speeds they want us to upgrade to mean nothing if they won't let us use the services that can take advantage of that speed. As far as I know, my Charter connection hasn't messed with any of my streaming so I am happy. I don't care if I get the full download speeds for Netflix as long as they give me enough to steadily stream at the highest quality with no buffering. If they wanna give me 12Mbps while I stream Netflix instead of 30Mbps I probably wouldn't notice.

If they do it to the point where I can't maintain a steady top quality stream than I would rather go with a provider that is slower overall as long as they are open and still fast enough to give me a top quality stream.

 

[mike123abc]

I would have to agree Googles 1Gbit/sec speed is pretty much marketing hype. Yes it is a real speed and I have no doubt you and your neighbor could talk at 1Gbs, but what about the rest of the web? I have a 50mbit/sec connection and very few sites actually seem to be able to deliver 50mbit/sec to me.