Is Earthlink now capping DSL speed in the Bay Area?

[docinthebox]

I live in Sunnyvale, CA and have been getting 1.1Mbps consistently on my
Earthlink/Mindspring DSL PPPoE connection for the past three years. Since
last week, I noticed that my download speed had dropped significantly to
324kbps.

I remember reading that Earthlink has two prices for DSL, $39.95/month for a
service that's capped at 384kbps downstream, and $49.95/month for a service
that can go up to 1.5Mbps. I'm paying $49.95/month.

Just wondering if any other folks in the Sunnyvale area or elsewhere
experienced the same decrease in line speed on Earthlink DSL?

 

[Lord Evermore]

Why not call them and ask? Your line very well might have accidentally been reprovisioned at a lower speed, if the DSLAM at the central office lost configurations or something and they had to scramble to set everyone back up.

 

[docinthebox]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Why not call them and ask? Your line very well might have accidentally been reprovisioned at a lower speed, if the DSLAM at the central office lost configurations or something and they had to scramble to set everyone back up.

Thanks Lord Evermore. You were exactly right. I used Earthlink LiveChat just now and the support staff found out that the DSLAM was listing my maximum port rate at 384. So he put in a trouble ticket to recalibrate it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: docinthebox

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Why not call them and ask? Your line very well might have accidentally been reprovisioned at a lower speed, if the DSLAM at the central office lost configurations or something and they had to scramble to set everyone back up.

Thanks Lord Evermore. You were exactly right. I used Earthlink LiveChat just now and the support staff found out that the DSLAM was listing my maximum port rate at 384. So he put in a trouble ticket to recalibrate it.

Kills me that they are doing this. It is bad enough they capped the speeds at 1.5 Meg when the Modems were able to 6 Meg (The original DSL spec) and now most Modem chipsets can do 8 Meg and now they cap the speeds all the way down to 384K, unbelievable!!!

Consumers should stand for this crap. That's what is is pure and simple, these Corporations are treating the American Comsumer like they are P.O.S. If the Electric Company only supplied you with One Fifth of the power to run everything in your house I bet people would be screaming, it is the same thing with this "Broadband". No, you're not paying 1/5th of the price, these greedy Tards are getting a lot of money per month for very little in return from them and their equipment.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Christ, not EVERYTHING is a frigging conspiracy by Big Corporation.

In this instance, the guy's line got misconfigured. It happened a lot when I was working for an ISP.

In the general instance, what's horrific about them capping services? They charge a price, they give you a specific level of service. You pay it if you want it at that price, or you go find someone else. Yes, there's difficulty getting much choice from cable companies or DSL providers due to cable monopolies and the limited number of DSL providers (the basic providers, not the resellers), but it's not a sign of the corporate world taking away what's "rightfully" ours. They're trying to make a buck, can't fault them for that; if you don't like it, protest by not buying.

If they have a 384k cap, they charge a certain price for it. You you want higher speeds, and they offer it, you pay more for it. If they don't offer it, they're not taking the food out of your baby's mouth and dropping it on the floor, they're just not offering a service and you have to go somewhere else for it.

Just because the chips in the devices can handle higher speeds doesn't mean the ISP can afford the extreme levels of bandwidth that would be required to handle thousands and hundreds of thousands of users with 8Mbps connections, most of whom are going to be downloading porn or illegally sharing copyrighted media and software. Maybe they could if they weren't wasteful and corrupt and overpaying executives while laying off workers, but that's certainly not limited to the Internet industry, and in case you hadn't noticed, the economy is in the dumps so no company is investing in the installed bandwidth that is needed to allow us all to have ultra-high bandwidth connections.

The power system is considered a requirement for life in this country. If it fails, people can die, so no the power company can't stop delivering power or cut you off at a certain point, but they do choose to deliver it at a certain cost, and in some places you have a choice; in other cases, the government regulates it so that the cost can't be increased beyond a certain amount. Nobody's going to die because you can't get the new WindowsXP beta for 3 days. You always have a choice to go somewhere that has better prices.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore[/i]
Christ, not EVERYTHING is a frigging conspiracy by Big Corporation.

"In this instance, the guy's line got misconfigured. It happened a lot when I was working for an ISP."

This is not a personal attack but a personal observation on my part that it sure sounds like you still work for an ISP or worse somehow involved with the continuing erosion of Broadband deployment in the U.S. and rising costs for degrading said service.

"If they have a 384k cap, they charge a certain price for it. You you want higher speeds, and they offer it, you pay more for it. If they don't offer it, they're not taking the food out of your baby's mouth and dropping it on the floor, they're just not offering a service and you have to go somewhere else for it."

You do not in most instances have anywhere else to go because the Companies you are defending have bought out and manipulated the Government and the people to stop any competition, that sure sounds like a "frigging" Conspiracy.

"In the general instance, what's horrific about them capping services? They charge a price, they give you a specific level of service. You pay it if you want it at that price, or you go find someone else. Yes, there's difficulty getting much choice from cable companies or DSL providers due to cable monopolies and the limited number of DSL providers (the basic providers, not the resellers), but it's not a sign of the corporate world taking away what's "rightfully" ours. They're trying to make a buck, can't fault them for that; if you don't like it, protest by not buying."

Hmmm, could it be there is a limited number of DSL Providers because they are a Monopoly just like the Cable Monopolies? Difficulty in getting much choice? Again by design by Multi Billion dollar lobbying of the Government by the Telcos (IE Bought out) most of the time, NO Choice. Not a sign of taking away what is "Rightfully" ours and protest by not buying, interesting choice of words but I will get back to them in a moment.

"Just because the chips in the devices can handle higher speeds doesn't mean the ISP can afford the extreme levels of bandwidth that would be required to handle thousands and hundreds of thousands of users with 8Mbps connections, most of whom are going to be downloading porn or illegally sharing copyrighted media and software."

What business is it of yours to care what people are downloading or sharing? Are you now or have asprirations to becoming the next Dictator perhaps in the U.S.?

"Just because the chips in the devices can handle higher speeds doesn't mean the ISP can afford the extreme levels of bandwidth maybe they could if they weren't wasteful and corrupt and overpaying executives while laying off workers, but that's certainly not limited to the Internet industry, and in case you hadn't noticed, the economy is in the dumps so no company is investing in the installed bandwidth that is needed to allow us all to have ultra-high bandwidth connections."

Hmmm the same wasteful and corrupt, overpayed executives that are spending the Consumers money with higher rates to Lobby the Government to make sure there is no choice and they have full control of the Service as well as stiffle competition? Maybe if they didn't keep gouging the American Consumer for what was meant to be a "Basic" service (I'll get back to this too) the Economy wouldn't be in such a dump.

These ISP's (Telcos) you are defending have upped the price for the 1.5 meg cap they have had since the get go from an avg of $50 per month to now $70 with a publicly stated goal that they want $90 per month for 1.5 Meg Internet speeds while at the same time degrading service when Technology and equipment gets better with time. Do you know of any Engineers purposely charged with downgrading Technology? Actually yes, by stiffling Competition especially in Hardware area the Telcos and ISP's that choose to follow in their footsteps actually get to freeze technology in a time warp for their own benefit by keeping new features and Technical advances away from the people while inflating the costs of the service they refuse to allow to get better.

"The power system is considered a requirement for life in this country. If it fails, people can die, so no the power company can't stop delivering power or cut you off at a certain point, but they do choose to deliver it at a certain cost, and in some places you have a choice; in other cases, the government regulates it so that the cost can't be increased beyond a certain amount. Nobody's going to die because you can't get the new WindowsXP beta for 3 days. You always have a choice to go somewhere that has better prices."

I'm not one for Big Government or Over Government but in this case of Broadband clearly leaving it to the Private sector is a complete failure due to plain human greed and fear of the power of it in the hands of the Citizenry. The U.S. has fallen to number eight on the list of Broadband Deployment Worldwide and falling more on that list everyday. Finland, The Netherlands, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, and the UK, all of the Countries ahead of the U.S. realize the "Neccessicity" of the Internet as a basic need in the New Information World but with Policies such as you, the Telcos and increasingly the Government (getting more controlled by the Telcos and other Big Corprations such as Hollywood MPPA and RIAA) have and feel the Internet is not only NOT a basic need but an evil tool of the people and should be controlled and shut down as much as possible.

"They're trying to make a buck, can't fault them for that; if you don't like it, protest by not buying."

Hmmm, can you go without Internet access?

I have to wonder why you appear so happy at the direction the U.S. is taking? Are you getting free High Speed Internet? Are you a Board Member of one these Telcos or ISP's or in Government now? Hmmm, which one.

 

[spidey07]

bandwidth isn't free, nor is it cheap. A 1.5 Mbs link should cost 600-800 dollars, not 40.

I applaud ISPs who are taking active steps in managing their traffic. 384 kbit/sec for 30-40 bucks a month...you're getting a steal. Remember these ISPs probably only have a DS3 to the internet at only 45 Mbs, that can't suppor too many 6 Mbs customers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07
bandwidth isn't free, nor is it cheap. A 1.5 Mbs link should cost 600-800 dollars, not 40.

I applaud ISPs who are taking active steps in managing their traffic. 384 kbit/sec for 30-40 bucks a month...you're getting a steal. Remember these ISPs probably only have a DS3 to the internet at only 45 Mbs, that can't suppor too many 6 Mbs customers.

That's interesting, how do you explain that the speeds in Europe and everywhere else are going up while in the U.S. the speeds are going down?

 

[Lord Evermore]

It's the only way they've stopped everybody from migrating here. 🙂 Or made them forget that they're European for a few hours each day.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
bandwidth isn't free, nor is it cheap. A 1.5 Mbs link should cost 600-800 dollars, not 40.

I applaud ISPs who are taking active steps in managing their traffic. 384 kbit/sec for 30-40 bucks a month...you're getting a steal. Remember these ISPs probably only have a DS3 to the internet at only 45 Mbs, that can't suppor too many 6 Mbs customers.

That's interesting, how do you explain that the speeds in Europe and everywhere else are going up while in the U.S. the speeds are going down?

I deal with all major cities from western europe to the far pac-rim. I have not seen this trend you describe internationally. In fact, most times the cost/kbit is more expensive than it is here. The circuits I order are generally from 384-1500 kbit.

I'm not complaing really, because our international frame-relay cost 2000/mo for a 256k pipe. DSL is clearly winning.

 

[crazydave]

ok, while we're on the topic of the economics of broadband, i have a question....

how could @home provide 3-4Mbps cable modem service to me (and everyone else in my neighborhood) if bandwidth is so expensive? ok, so now they're dead but from what i heard they went bankrupt more from the cable companies screwing them over than from providing bandwidth too cheap (i guess it doesn't matter now since they're gone..)

but once they died my @home switched to attbi. now why would it cost att so much to provide bandwidth... considering they're one of the largest telcos, wouldn't most of that cash go back to themselves since i'm sure they own a lot of backbone. speaking of backbone, isn't there also a lot of "dark fiber" that was laid during the .com times and now unused--i'm sure the owners of that would want to offer that at a bargain so that it does get used...

i agree that leased lines are quite expensive to setup and maintain (T1, DS3, etc). especially since they have to do a lot of work to prepare that--but dsl/cable infrastructure is there already in most homes. once the cost of setting up the infrastructure is covered, shouldn't bandwidth get a lot cheaper? since all they'd have to do is maintain the infrastructure. but prices have only gone up in the last few years--maybe it's all the VC money drying up... so do you think that costs will get cheaper in the near future, if at all?

ok, so maybe i don't have all my facts right. maybe someone can help clear that up, thanks.

 

[dmcowen674]

No, you're right Crazy, once the the ROI is paid for the price of providing the service should go down. It is the same for phone service, the rates are artificially inflated over and over way beyond what it ever cost to provide the service. During a Hurricane or other Natural disaster it is called Price Gouging, for Corporate America that owns the Government it's called legal Monopoly.

 

[spidey07]

for Corporate America that owns the Government it's called legal Monopoly

Or its called supply and demand.

Are you willing to pay the price for goods served? If so then the price fits. Apply this basic economics prinicple to any provider of goods/services and it works out.

Sometimes I cannot believe the nerve of folks saying "I want my multimegabit internet connection for 20 bucks a month!" when they have no idea the capital nor the labor involved in servicing such a connection. The capital outlay on the termination and routing gear required for a ds3 or multiple OC3 connections is not that high (< 200K) but with all networks that is just a fraction of the cost.

Support is the big killer, here's where the ongoing expense comes into play because there is very little ROI on an employee.....sorry, its a headcount thing. Manning support lines and the engineers to grow it aren't cheap.

Why do you think the mom-n-pop ISPs are going under left and right the last 7 years? Because they cannot provide a service at a price the market will bear. Sure you can skimp on the labor (hire cheap), sure you can skimp on the hardware, sure you can skimp on the management and provisioning software required to run a service oriented internet connection.

But at the end of the day you will not make a profit by doing so, because your competitors are doing it better and cheaper and realizing the economies of scale.

A good, strong mangible network requires little in the means of support. But the problem is you have to have a generally large network to realize these expense savings. Otherwise you have 10 engineers at 160K a piece running around trying to fix Suzie's DHCP problem.

Still if some believe that they should have multimegabit Internet connections for less than a grand/mo they can keep believing it. I'll stick to reality.

To put it in perspective one is saying "I want to make long distance phone calls to anywhere in the world, and I want 24 simultaneous calls, and I want it to be a flat charge having nothing to do with actual usage"

No I don't work for an ISP but I have built several and fully understand the cost involved and the fact that most ISPs are hemeraging cash severely right now because of the market. They can't cut cost anymore, the only thing they can do is manage their income and service...cutting bandwidth to prevent the top 1% of subscribers from eating 90% of their bandwidth is a step in the right direction.

Previous statistics are based on personal expience and not fabricated.

 

[jvang125]

i've been wondering why prices for broadband services haven't gone down when taking into account how long they've been offered. i remember dsl when it barely was starting to go mainstream for $50/month with bandwidth of 324Kbps - 768kbps. now 5 years later, the prices are still the same or increasing while the bandwidth offered is decreasing. i would think as technology improves, the cost of these services would decrease a bit.

an example would be the wireless industry. just a few years ago, the high cost of owning and using a cell phone almost inhibits it for general use for many people. and now you could get up to 1000 anytime minutes along with unlimited nights and weekends for a significantly lower cost than it was a few years ago.

i'm not saying that you should get 1.5mbps for $20 but how about $30/mon for a 324kbps-768kbps line and $40-45 for 1.5mbps -3mbps sound? i think this sounds more reasonable considering there's more competition today and the needed infastructure is already there. in my area i can get a 768k-1.5m dsl line for $50/mon excluding taxes and other charges or a 1.5mbps cable connection for $60/month.

i dont see how broadband companies are making all the hype about how much better the internet would be so that you can access all the wonderful multimedia and educational content provided by a dsl or cable line but at the same time still charging so much for it. if they want to push broadband into every home, charging this much isn't going to get them there anytime soon. not every household with a computer can afford $50-$60 a month when they can barely afford dail-up for $20.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Consider that before DSL and cable, ISDN was about the only high speed service available, and could cost hundreds of dollars per month for only 128k service. DSL has gotten cheaper over the years, considering that you couldn't even get very high speed service when it started being rolled out.

The economy is crap right now. Can't really expect prices to go down when companies aren't making enough profit and are laying people off like mad just to stay alive. Just randomly picking a price that sounds reasonable to you isn't a valid way of making money, anymore than just making up a price for a car that sounds like the right value.

Companies can't be expected to drop prices to nearly no margin just to spread broadband faster. Consider that they COULD be charging a lot more since you've really only got two options (DSL and cable) for high speed, low-latency broadband.

Another issue with trying to reduce prices in order to spread broadband is the fact that reaching the homes requires that they invest even more money to spread the equipment network, so they're outlaying more cash while making less money on it.

Supply and demand, and a weak economy, and the lowered interest in technology, combined with the fact that the Internet isn't worth much to a lot of people.