Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clearwire Sued Over WiMAX Throttling

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the beware-the-internet-traffic-cops dept.

Handhelds 166

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "Wireless operator Clearwire has had a bumpy few months, and now things are getting worse. A lawsuit has been filed by 15 users over the company's throttling practices, accusing Clearwire of not delivering advertised 'high-speed Internet' services to customers and charging them termination fees when they walk away unsatisfied. The complaint focuses heavily on Clearwire's advertising, which not only highlights the speed of the connection, but also the fact that there are no limits on data usage. 'Usage is unlimited — believe it. You can upload, download, and surf as much as you want for one low price with any of the CLEAR Internet plans. We don't slow down your connection — the way some Internet providers do — if we think you are using too much bandwidth,' the complaint quotes from Clearwire's website. (That text appears to have been removed at the time of publication)."

cancel ×

166 comments

yay. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35452914)

deceptive advertising, DESPITE they have advertised that they were not doing deceptive advertising.

Re:yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453374)

As long as they haven't been advertising the fact that they have advertised that they were not doing deceptive advertising, I really don't see the problem.

Re:yay. (0)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453676)

>>>they have advertised that they were not doing deceptive advertising

Yeah but it's entirely legal. Clear's contract says they can change the rules anytime they wish. *However* that SAME contract also says the user is no longer bound by the contract, and can therefore terminate within 30 days without penalty.

Clear is a bastard to be charging users penalties.

Re:yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453838)

Perhaps they just advertised that they did not deceive people that they were not doing deceptive advertising ?

Re:yay. (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453930)

deceptive advertising, DESPITE they have advertised that they were not doing deceptive advertising.

They advertised unlimited internet, and they are delivering unlimited internet.

Remember, "throttling" is *not* the same as "capping".

Almost certainly they do not advertise "unlimited" internet at specific speeds but rather the possibility of "up to" some speed.

The key here is to *know* what you are buying, and not make *assumptions*.

Re:yay. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454080)

They advertised unlimited internet, and they are delivering unlimited internet.

Remember, "throttling" is *not* the same as "capping".

Almost certainly they do not advertise "unlimited" internet at specific speeds but rather the possibility of "up to" some speed.

The key here is to *know* what you are buying, and not make *assumptions*.

Going by TFS, they advertised they don't have upload or download limits, AND that they don't throttle. In fact, they make that claim twice - explicitly and implied when they compare themserlves to the competition.

From TFS: (because it's been removed from the site)

Usage is unlimited â" believe it. You can upload, download, and surf as much as you want for one low price with any of the CLEAR Internet plans. We don't slow down your connection â" the way some Internet providers do â" if we think you are using too much bandwidth

(Emphasis mine).

So they claim truly unlimited uploads and downloads, plus no throttling at all even if they think you're using too much. Unlike some other ISPs.

They advertised truly unlimited service.

Re:yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35454116)

Read the summary:

We don't slow down your connection — the way some Internet providers do — if we think you are using too much bandwidth,

Re:yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35454118)

Their advertising specifically said they wouldn't throttle:

'Usage is unlimited — believe it. You can upload, download, and surf as much as you want for one low price with any of the CLEAR Internet plans. We don't slow down your connection — the way some Internet providers do — if we think you are using too much bandwidth,'

Slow down your connection = throttling by any definition.

Re:yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35454248)

When they hit my area (Lancaster, PA) last year, I looked into them as a backup internet line. I've had Comcast for about 8 years, which has given me periodic problems lasting weeks and months at a time, plus their phone tech support are just plain jackasses, but that's another slew of stories (save one below).

The thing I found funny about Clear at the time was they were talking about how they didn't throttle, unlimited bandwidth, yadda yadda. I chatted with a rep and they confirmed this. I read some reviews and forum posts, and it was the opposite--they did throttle, and got a link to their terms of service...which specifically said they can throttle.

Marketing--no throttle. Contract--we throttle. They can't get their story straight=untrusted.

I decided not to sign up with them for the time being. I supposedly have access to DSL, but having had DSL in the past, it sucked. Verizon billing practices, credit history abuses, doesn't make DSL worth the low fee. And have the time I call a rep, they say it's bundled or unbundled from phone. Bleh. OTOH, Clear supposedly just added a tower in my neighborhood. Now that termination fee scares me.

The state of broadband in the US, particularly where I am, just shows how market forces suck at providing consistent, decent service. Sad when the best provider (Comcast) in my area "upgrades" your lines, nukes your service, then denies anything is wrong, that they can contact your modem, then your TV goes out, and they can STILL contact your modem, does the mandatory 2 tech visits over 2 different days spanning 4 days who confirm they same thing, they ask for a truck roll, none happens, they lose all history of the tech visits aside that visits were made, and insists on ANOTHER 2 tech visits to confirm the problem before calling a truck roll, which takes another 3 days for the work to be done, which they said was done, but there is no signal (how the F*** does that happen), which requires, anyways, you get the point. Total time consumed was 1.5 months. And they refused to refund any lost time.

3 months later, Comcast rolls out their customer service guarantee. I cried. Marketing.

Wow... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35452950)

Who could ever have expected that a wireless(and thus inherently shared-medium, with some partial exceptions from clever antenna shaping and stuff) ISP would be even worse than the wireline ones about bandwidth throttling and general dickishness? I, for one, am shocked.

Re:Wow... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35452994)

The municipal wireless in Minneapolis doesn't pull any of those stunts. It's not uncommon for my house to stream Hulu in one room, Netflix in another, and nab torrents of distro daily-builds like a mad fiend (amongst other things...), all at the same time. They have never once throttled me down.

Re:Wow... (4, Interesting)

spinkham (56603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453586)

Which is exactly why there is a proposed bill in NC written by the Time Warner that would make it illegal for any more municipal Internet, and greatly increace the tax burden and accounting practices of the few that have already sprung up. They're scared still they might have to provide good service, so are willing to hobble broadband in my state for the forseeable future. My rep has gotten an ear-full about it, with more to come as the bill moves through...

Re:Wow... (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454004)

Municipal WIFI is socialism. You're not a socialist, are you?

Re:Wow... (1)

Gofyerself (1709970) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454082)

Getting something out of the money I pay in property taxes is Socialism?

I use Clear in the Dallas Area (2)

guzzirider (551141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453566)

I use Clear in the Dallas Area. The USB dongle runs 3 to 5 mbit at work (24 miles from home) and the ‘Box’ runs 2 to 4 mbit at home. As with any RF system range is going to be an issue, so is its inherent bandwidth limitation (as with any system). Yes sometimes the data rate can get real bad, even drop out. This does not usually last a long time but it can be annoying. I have never experienced anything that I would believe as targeted or intentional limiting, however if enough people suck on the same straw at the same time what do you think is going to happen? As far as being able to get out of a contract for poor performance, maybe that has merit I don’t know.
Clear (sprint is involved here) has been having financial challenges lately, personally for me it would be sad to see them go. By the standards of the cable companies I would be a download hog. (multi part large WinRared binaries ..Clear provides me an alternative option, I Live in an urban connectivity hell, DSL for me is at best 2mbit, usually 1.4 or so. There is no upgrade available yet ( 3 blocks away it is a different story), and no Fios in my neighborhood. I own my home and it is not something I would sell over something that in 5 to 10 years will change.

Re:I use Clear in the Dallas Area (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453788)

In some cases, they HAVE been observed as throttling. There's a reason they pulled the verbiage from the website as indicated in the summary.

Pretty much all of the wireless internet vendors have taken to throttling connections at this point- and it's more because they can't handle the load on their backhaul than the towers not being able to handle the load. In fact, many of your problems aren't RF related in town unless you've got proof the RF dropped out on you.

Re:I use Clear in the Dallas Area (1)

asgalvan (1201175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453968)

I am also in the Dallas area, and I have been throttled. One day you get 2 to 4 Mbps, then it goes down to less than 100kbps for the rest of the month. The deceiving thing is that they have no usage point that they do it; it is all arbitrary. Good option for cheap, basic internet where you cannot get DSL. Bad for heavy usage, like for commerical use or streaming video.

Re:Wow... (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453688)

The problem isn't so much the "precious limited wireless spectrum" that everyone presumes that is the cause of things like the throttling, etc. is being done.

It's NOT that for which they throttle for. The backhaul can't handle the loads in question. Seriously. It's not that the phones/dongles can't transact the tower properly in most cases, it's that the stuff the towers are connected to that can't handle the loads. And, most of that is the jokers trying to oversell capacity or under allocate the resources in question to "maximize profits".

Sprint, too? (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 3 years ago | (#35452954)

Doesn't Sprint share the Clear services for their WiMax capabilities? I can attest to the lack of bandwidth restrictions (on 4G at least) by 193GB usage since November!

Re:Sprint, too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453300)

I can attest to the lack of bandwidth restrictions (on 4G at least) by 193GB usage since November!

since november? lol, i have that much traffic since february 15th, 2011 :))
however, i dont use clear/sprint.

oink oink :P

Re:Sprint, too? (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453760)

That was just my mobile usage. I tend to be a considerably more conservative in my mobile usage than my home usage.

Re:Sprint, too? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453344)

Lots of it is probably congestion. I've seen severe network issues on Sprint 3g, throttling or not.

Re:Sprint, too? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453780)

Sprint does use Clear WiMAX for their 4G services in an FA setup, but (as with the Comcast FA config) those aren't run through the same QoS profiles that the base Clear service is.

Re:Sprint, too? (2)

evildarkdeathclicheo (978593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454008)

Sprint owns 51% of Clearwire. All of the "4G" services Sprint offers use the Clearwire network. Keep in mind that this is WiMax, and not really 4G, but because they sold it before 4G was a standard, they can continue to advertise as such. Rumors are of a deal between Sprint, T-Mobile, and Clearwire regarding 4G, so I suspect something significant to come of this soon, probably for the worse (for the consumer) and for the better for the beleaguered business deal.

Re:Sprint, too? (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454364)

Sprint owns 51% of Clearwire. All of the "4G" services Sprint offers use the Clearwire network. Keep in mind that this is WiMax, and not really 4G, but because they sold it before 4G was a standard, they can continue to advertise as such. Rumors are of a deal between Sprint, T-Mobile, and Clearwire regarding 4G, so I suspect something significant to come of this soon, probably for the worse (for the consumer) and for the better for the beleaguered business deal.

Is 4G a standard? Last I heard it was just a marketing term used by the telco's to describe their 'better than 3G' service. 4G could be LTE, WiMax, or HSPA+; all very different, all '4G'

T-mobile does this. (2, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35452976)

We really need a federal law that defines "unlimited broadband internet." Throttling me down to dial-up speeds past 5 gigabytes per month is not unlimited broadband. Hell, anything under 3mbps shouldnt even be called broadband.

The DSL reports forums about Clear are horrific. I was thinking of using them for a remote office's backup line, but absolutely no way now. Random throttling to 256k for day or weeks on end is not acceptable.

I feel if they had a decent business level service and priced it accordingly they could really break into the business market. Instead, the "business" package they sell is just a static IP and the same horrible throttling policies.

Re:T-mobile does this. (3, Insightful)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453066)

We really need a federal law that defines "unlimited broadband internet."

Maybe I'm jaded, but anytime I see the words government and Internet in the same sentence I get worried. The last thing we need is the government involved with anything that has to do with the Internet lest we end up with the "government's version" of the web. I like that it's a true "free frontier". Or at least, as much as it can be.

Re:T-mobile does this. (4, Interesting)

jacobsm (661831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453126)

It seems to me that government is less evil than corporations right now. I'd welcome its intervention in ensuring that the internet isn't hijacked by corporate evil-doers.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453304)

You mean you can tell where one stops and the other begins? You must have a better glasses prescription than I do. To me, I see that I have exactly one cable provider and exactly one DSL provider, and know that the municipality is to blame.

Re:T-mobile does this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453544)

Both of those services rely on good lines to support these services. From a company's point of view, they can either approach existing company X and propose line sharing, they can lay new lines entirely, or they can setup shop somewhere that doesn't have an existing company X and take the entire region for their own.

I live less than an hour from the state capital ( probably closer to 25 minutes ) and my choices are:

Dialup ( non-choice #1 )
1mbps Satalite ( non-choice #2 )
15/2 Cable

If I lived in town I could get dsl, but it would still be slower than the cable and not save enough money to make it worth while. I can accept that I'll never see FIOS or 24mbps+ cable here, but it's not really right to say that the town / county are at fault for not spending all their money paying for copper or fibre lines when roads need resurfaced, pot holes filled, snow plowed, and any other normal expense for a semi-rural area.

The barrier of entry is astronomical - although I can't source it, I've saw standard cable quoted at costing 30,000USD per mile, and considering what it takes to lay them I can understand.

Right of way, equipment costs ( if they have to dig it will cost more ), terrain problems, and if the road needs dug and repaired... There's just a lot of things that affect how much it would cost to lay 20 miles of cable to cover an outer community.

Unless they stand to make a huge load of money being covering the area ( in my case the local provider was able to provide service to my entire township and at least one neighboring one, all people who had no real choice until then ), the company isn't going to pay to install a base station / repeaters and all the lines to run to the customers out of the goodness of their hearts.

Re:T-mobile does this. (2)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454192)

>>>The barrier of entry is astronomical -

The barrier to entry is the GOVERNMENT forbidding any other company but Comcast to run high-speed lines. That was the Grandparent Poster's point.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453338)

You dont like the company then you stop paying them and get a competing service. If you don't like the government then you will need to convince a lot of people that it is bad.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453560)

Most areas in the US don't really have competing services. As far as I've been able to determine, I can only get broadband from my cable provider, and I live in an urban area. Of course, the cable provider also offers cable television, and VOIP services. They have serious incentive to throttle my Netflix, Hulu and Vonage.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453366)

Any time you start thinking that the government is less "evil" than corporations, or that corporations are less "evil" than the government, you get onto scary ground. Both are institutions made up by people, and governed by how those people behave. History shows that people collectively will not consistently act in a "good" way, and that the more power they have, the more that tends to show itself.

The correct move is to carefully balance how much power each has to minimize those effects, and not assume one or the other needs to be given gross liberties.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453492)

Scylla and Charybdis.

On one hand, we have ISPs who are chomping at the bit to sell every shred of data they glean possible, throw ads, and find ways to rat people out.

On the other hand, if we have the government at the hand, who knows what may happen after election years and the elected people take office.

Re:T-mobile does this. (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454142)

The expression is "champing at the bit" you illiterate oaf.

Re:T-mobile does this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453136)

We really need a federal law that defines "unlimited broadband internet."

Maybe I'm jaded, but anytime I see the words government and Internet in the same sentence I get worried. The last thing we need is the government involved with anything that has to do with the Internet lest we end up with the "government's version" of the web. I like that it's a true "free frontier". Or at least, as much as it can be.

True, but I have to be perfectly honest here: I'd much, much rather have the government dictating things like that than corporations. The former is beholden to their voters. The later are only beholden to their shareholders.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453398)

We saw how "beholden to their voters" worked out with the healthcare bill-- which a majority of the voters opposed (I dont care what your affiliation is, thats not an ideal scenario). It doesnt always work out as one would hope it would.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453712)

the healthcare bill-- which a majority of the voters opposed

Yeah, one of the problems with compromise is that noone is 100% happy with the result. Something like 37% of those opposed to the bill thought that it didn't go far enough.

Re:T-mobile does this. (0)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453198)

lol randroids.

Re:T-mobile does this. (0)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453332)

lol I disagree with that guy so I'll call him a funny name, even though it doesn't necessarily fit.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454064)

lol.

Re:T-mobile does this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453202)

The Web and the Internet are not the same thing. Also neither was a "free frontier"; you must have read too many issues of Wired back in the 90s.

Re:T-mobile does this. (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453216)

It would not be government regulation of the Internet, it would be government regulation of advertising about the Internet.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453246)

We really need a federal law that defines "unlimited broadband internet."

Maybe I'm jaded, but anytime I see the words government and Internet in the same sentence I get worried. The last thing we need is the government involved with anything that has to do with the Internet lest we end up with the "government's version" of the web. I like that it's a true "free frontier". Or at least, as much as it can be.

Yes, how dare big government get in the way of big business. Corporations would never act in any way that would harm their customers; only governments do that.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453416)

I hope thats not a dichotomy youre driving at.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453762)

dichotomies are fine, it's the false ones you need to watch out for. Further, I don't really see how that's a dichotomy. The only thing I see is the implication that corporations are at least as bad as governments, anything further is up to the reader.

Re:T-mobile does this. (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453278)

The last thing we need is the government involved with anything that has to do with the Internet lest we end up with the "government's version" of the web.

Yeah, especially not the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [wikipedia.org] . If they got involved, it would just wreck the whole thing.

Also, keep your government hands off of my Medicare!

Re:T-mobile does this. (4, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453312)

Why does it have to be internet specific? Can't we just have the word, 'unlimited' defined as to mean.... 'unlimited'? Regardless of what the industry is?

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

JimFive (1064958) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453828)

Way back in the days of CompuServ, there were two billing models for internet use. By the minute or by the byte. Most home usage was by the minute. When "unlimited internet" came to be it meant that you were charged a flat monthly rate and there were no time limits on your connection. It had nothing to do with how much data you sent across the wire. More recently, as broadband internet became popular it was advertised as "Always On" again, contrasting itself with a time limited dial-up connection. (Even though the dialup was unlimited in terms of time, it was not common for people to leave it connected, because they, you know, wanted to use the phone).

Now that always on, broadband(ish) connections are common, we, the consumers, think that unlimited should mean unlimited bytes, even though it has, historically, never meant that.

TL;DR: Because "unlimited" is more ambiguous as you think.
--
JimFive

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453342)

Enjoy your easy mod points from the randroids, but advertising is already heavily regulated - and with good reason. Hell, broadband is already defined at 256kps. This definition bought by big companies. The FCC needs to change this and start being more picky about advertising language. The language in these ads reflects nothing about the service. At the very least they should be forced to show us their caps and throttling policies. How can you have a function market when this information is purposely hidden from the consumer?

Its kinda sad that when big business causes problems some people think the solution is just more big business. This historically has never worked.

Re:T-mobile does this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453604)

"Randroids".

I think the best thing in their favor is the juvenile behavior of their critics.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453770)

gad_zuki!, I think you touched a nerve with some people....

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453950)

>>>broadband is already defined at 256kps. This definition bought by big companies. The FCC needs to change this

They did.
Two years ago. It's now 4000kbit/s.
Funny. I had a broadband connection (faster than 56k dialup and faster than the OECD 256k definition) and now I don't, just because they redefined the meaning of the word.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

mikestew (1483105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454072)

When you see those two words in the same sentence, do you also feel an uncomfortable jerking in your knee, followed by the emission of a canned response?

Parent wasn't suggesting that your Wild West interwebs be changed, but that advertising be regulated such that it is not deceptive, downright false and/or what a company says in 36 point type isn't cancelled by what they say in 6 point type.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454338)

Not jaded, just stupid. Or perhaps you have some evidence that the mythical "free market" is alive and well and doing a bang-up job of seeing that consumers have real choices (and thus some kind of clout)?
Nah. Didn't think so.

Re:T-mobile does this. (4, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453082)

We really need a federal law that defines "unlimited broadband internet."

Ummm...Do you really want a bunch of "get off my lawn!" grampys who have absolutely no clue what the Internet is deciding something that already exists in law?

It is called bait & switch and it is already illegal.

none are Unlimited. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453282)

Maybe not a law, but a regulation or some other clarification.

I haven't heard of any retail internet connection that is "unlimited".

Bandwidth limits are common
-Maybe removed for "unlimited" plans, or they still have an "excessive use" clause
Usage agreements typically ban servers, often ban anything obscene, pornographic, offensive etc.
- Almost every opinion, and many facts are offensive to someone.
Some ports are often blocked.
certain traffic may be throttled.
Other traffic may be blocked.

I'd like actually unlimited access, no blocked ports/protocols etc, no "acceptable use" limits, no throttling, no "offensive" content rules.
Good luck seeing this anytime soon.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453298)

I know libertarianism is popular here, but advertising is already regulated and for good reason. The selling of internet is no different. Considering that they're obviously lying in their ads or at least being purposely misleading, this is an appropriate opportunity to engage in regulation.

Hell, its already regulated now. Broadband is defined at 256/kbits in the US. Mostly thanks to big donors who would rather pay off congress than provide good service. Now, people should be demanding an end to this poor definition that corporations have bought.

The funny thing about your comment is that the CEOs of these companeis don't know shit either. Both they and the politicians rely on their engineers to advise them. The difference is that government is beholden to voters and corporations to shareholders. One has the possibility of being democratic.

The drastic state of broadband in the US exists because of too much corporate power. Continuing to let them do as they please will lead to more of this kind of thing - high cost compared to other countries, sub-par wireless, throttling, false advertising, etc.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453370)

Actually this is not bait and switch. Good luck getting your DA to prosecute on this.

Its 100% legal to call overly throttled and capped service "unlimited broadband" as long as you stay over 256kbps with your cap based throttling, as thats the FCC's definition of broadband.

This low definition of broadband, bought by big corporations in the 90s, is meaningless today. The definition needs to change to at least 3mbps.

Re:T-mobile does this. (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453734)

It actually IS bait and switch if you claim you don't throttle and then do it anyway.

Arrogant inexperienced dolts are much better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453682)

at making decisions than intelligent seniors with years of learned wisdom. You are an ignorant ass.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453428)

Or maybe we need a federal education program about what the terms broadband and baseband actually mean, so the general public are not so easily duped.

Broadband has nothing to do with mbps - and unless they cut you off it's by definition unlimited. Caveat emptor.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453432)

You dont need a law. Just a dictionary.

Unlimited = no limits

Technically speaking, there is already a definition of broadband. E2 or higher, meaning at least 2mbps.

So, in a nutshell, you are as clueless as those legislators you want to make decision on something they (and you) dont understand.
Please do your homework.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453468)

That should have been "E1 or higher".

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453496)

Looks like an employee of Clear has mod points today... How is the GP in anyway a troll? Or is his karma just that bad?

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453686)

I think a government definition of "unlimited" would probably stretch on for five or six pages with alot of words like "except" and "unless" featuring promentently. It would be quite readable, if you are used to regulations, legal briefs and court decisions.

Face it, regardless of some sort of regulation, it is going to mean whatever the heck the provider wants it to mean because the term "unlimited" has no meaning. What could possibly be unlimited? Obviously, the bandwidth has some fixed upper limit and is being sold as "burstable" not dedicated, meaning that you get what you get. So, if the bandwidth isn't dedicated there is no basis for saying there is a fixed amount of data that could be transferred over any given time period. So while there are clearly limits, the limits are dependent on the usage of the bandwidth resource and unknowable.

Clearly "unlimited" has no meaning in this context - there are limits but even the provider doesn't know them.

Unlimited might mean that they are going to impose limits beyond which the physical resources are limited. Well, that certainly could be the case because to the user it is unknown if the low data transfer rate is due to competition for resources or because the provider is artificially imposing a limit.

It will be interesting to see how the court case turns out. My guess is Clearwire just says that there was no imposed throttling and this was due to competition for the bandwidth due to overuse in that area. Present some nice pretty charts that are shown as evidence presented under oath. End of trial. Sorry customers, you didn't understand what you were buying.

Re:T-mobile does this. (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453820)

>>>Throttling me down to dial-up speeds past 5 gigabytes per month

I'm not sure what you mean by "dialup" but I will assume 128kbit/s (ISDN speed). That still allows you to download ~13KB/s or ~35+5 == approximately 40 gigabytes each month.

Re:T-mobile does this. (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453982)

Dialup means an off the shelf modem and a POTS line. It maxes out at 56kbps in North America. Anything beyond that requires special lines and/or customer premises equipment.

babys et al; sense of compassion etc, gone? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453068)

1. DEWEAPONIZATION (not a real word, but they like it) almost nothing else good happens until some progress here.

2. ALL BABYS CREATED/TO BE TREATED, EQUALLY. (a rough interpretation (probably cost us. seems like a no-brainer but they expressed that we fail on that one too(:)->) 'we do not need any 300$ 'strollers', or even to ride in your smelly cars/planes etc..., until such time as ALL of the creators' innocents have at least food, shelter, & some loving folks nearby.' again, this is a deal breaker, so pay attention, that's cheap enough, & could lead to our survival?

3. THOU SHALT NOT VACCINATE IRRESPONSIBLY. this appears to be a stop-gap intention.

the genuine feelings expressed included; in addition to the lack of acknowledgment of the advances/evolution of our tiny bodies/dna (including consciousness & intellect), almost nobody knows anymore what's in those things (vaccines) (or they'd tell us), & there's rumor much of it is less than good (possibly fatal) for ANY of us. if it were good for us we'd be gravitating towards it, instead of it being shoved in our little veins, wrecking them, & adversely affecting our improving immune systems/dna/development? at rite-aid, they give the mommies 100$ if they let them stick their babys with whoknowswhat? i can see why they're (the little ones) extremely suspicious? they're also asking that absolutely nobody be allowed to insert those corepirate nazi 'identity' 'chips' in their tiny frames. they know who they, and we, are, much better than we ever will? many, oddly? have fading inclinations to want to be reporters of nefarious life threatening processes, ie. 'conspiracies', as they sincerely believe that's 'stuff that REALLY matters', but they KNOW that things are going to be out in the open soon, so they intend to put their ever increasing consciousness, intellect, acute/astute senses & information gathering abilities, to the care & feeding of their fellow humans. no secrets to cover up with that goal.

4. AN END TO MANUFACTURED 'WEATHER'.

sortie like a no-(aerosol tankers)-fly zone being imposed over the whole planet. the thinking is, the planet will continue to repair itself, even if we stop pretending that it's ok/nothing's happening. after the weather manipulation is stopped (& it will be) it could get extremely warm/cold/blustery some days. many of us will be moving inland..., but we'll (most of us anyway) be ok, so long as we keep our heads up. conversely, the manufactured 'weather' puts us in a state of 'theater' that allows US to think that we needn't modify our megaslothian heritage of excessiveness/disregard for ourselves, others, what's left of our environment etc...? all research indicates that spraying chemicals in the sky is 100% detrimental to our/planet's well being (or they'd talk to US about it?). as for weather 'extremes', we certainly appear to be in a bleeding rash of same, as well as all that bogus seismic activity, which throws our advanced tiny baby magnets & chromosomes into crisis/escape mode, so that's working? we're a group whose senses are more available to us (like monkeys?) partly because we're not yet totally distracted by the foibles of man'kind'. the other 'part' is truly amazing. we saw nuclear war being touted on PBS as an environmental repair tool (?depopulation? (makes the babys' 'accountants' see dark red:-(-? yikes. so what gives? thanks for your patience & understanding while we learn to express our intentions. everybody has some. let us know. come to some of our million baby play-dates. no big hurry? catch your breath. we'll wait a bit more. thanks.

do the math. check out YOUR dna/intentional healing potential. thanks again.

Considering... (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453108)

these are the same people who plastered the lot where I park at work with bright green fliers advertising their service, that should tip people off to the type of company they are.

Unless you're a chinese restaurant or a pizza joint, if you have to advertise by putting fliers on people's cars, you're not a real business.

throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453116)

Anyone consider that some of the alleged "throttling" may bedue to service provider infrastructure that's overloaded to the point where the performance isn't good anymore?

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453152)

Anyone consider that if I sell you a ticket to an all you can eat buffet, and then turn around and say "too many people are eating tomatoes, so you can't have one right now", that that is false advertising? Get more tomatoes, or refund me my ticket, it's not all you can eat.

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453484)

I have bad news for you-- that is what happens in the real world. If you go to a buffet with 20 other friends, and you make it a point to eat all of their tomatoes, I dont think you would be able to sue when they ran out.

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (0)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453526)

Look up false equivalency. You just changed my scenario to a completely different one, where 20 friends are brought. That is not an apt comparison. You lose.

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453730)

It is true, though. Go to a buffet that has crab legs and a fair amount of people in it. If you aren't there when they put them out, you have to wait in line behind all the other people there who paid money to get all they wanted have their turn at the crab heap. When you get to it, there may or may not be any left.

There are two ways to solve this:

They can either increase the number of crab heaps ( relatively expensive ), or they can limit you by keeping one heap and moderating who can get some, and prevent you from having more if you are unfairly hogging them from the rest of the consumers.

Ideal world would be #1 - the ISP in question improves their network to handle more users. Laying out more lines is prohibitively expensive, but could result in better service for outlying communities ( or an equivalent of a repeater ).
Current world is #2 - top users are given nasty grams and told to let other people have a turn, or the isp throttles everyone ( has a server that dishes out the legs instead of being done by the customers ) so the amount is equal and the same heap of crabs can serve more people.

#2 is likely to hold a profit for the company - if everyone is limited to four crab legs and has to go back and eat them before they can get more, they not only keep the people who really want to eat crab there longer ( and buying drink refills ) or spending time eating food that costs less for the buffet to stock, but make that limited supply of crab last longer through the dinner hours.

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453792)

And, getting back to comparing hypothetical situations with the actual article here on slashdot...

if the place had specifically said, "Eat all the crabs you want! We will never limit the amount!", they would be guilty of false advertising. End of story. I win.

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453858)

The problem is that is exactly what is happening with wireless services. OK, maybe you didn't bring the 20 friends. But the 20 other users are there and each and every one of them has an expectation of excellent service. Which cannot be fulfilled.

Wireless services were great for early adopters which then helped to sell the concept to lots of other people. When I hear about real estate salespeople with cellular modems so they can access MLS listing in their car I figure this has been oversold. When every single cell phone store is advertising some cell modem I am sure it is being oversold. And the problem with overselling wireless services is there isn't a great way to fix their being oversold.

It is very much like cable Internet services were when they first came out - you had a T3 (maybe) link from the node to the head end and 1000 homes connected to the node. Well, when more than 100 people figured out the Internet they would completely soak the T3 connection and at the time there simply was no good alternative. What the cable folks did was end up running fiber to the nodes but that took 5-10 years to accomplish and we are now starting to max out the fiber connections.

Japan maxed out TDMA services and ended up inventing PCS and microcells to be able to cope. It took years and even today isn't what anyone would call a perfect answer. When AT&T introduced their One Rate plan initially they maxed out in nearly every large city and there simply were no solutions. Sure, they added some microcell infrastructure in the very biggest of cities but it still hasn't helped all that much. Today it is still the case that in large cities if something big happens the cell phone infrastructure collapses almost instantly.

Wireless services were designed with the idea that usage would never come anywhere near the levels it is at today. And for the most part there is no real solution to this - there simply isn't the physical infrastructure to support everyone having and using a cell phone constantly. Likely as not, there will never be that physical infrastructure in place. Any wireless service today is going to suffer from the same problems, whether it is the WiFi at Starbucks, a cell modem or some WiMax service. They are all going to be oversold and overused at some point in time and the result for the end user is going to be very poor service if anything at all.

No, they can't just build the network out more. WiMax specifically isn't intended to work with a micro- or pico-cell infrastructure.

By the way, this absolutely means the phone in your pocket will be useless anytime something happens to a lot of people in your area. So the one time you really, really need to here about something - like the directions for evacuating - it isn't going to work for you. Absolutely, cell-only folks are an example of evolution in action.

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453972)

News flash buddy - on 9/11/01, in fairfax county VA [5 mi from the pentagon], you could not get a land line call through to anybody either. Not that this has much to do with the conversation at hand. I'd just like to clear up the misconception that a land line is magical fairy goodness in a national emergency. It's not. Took me an hour just to get my parents on their land line.

IRC worked really well though :)

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454026)

All you CAN eat, not all you WANT to eat. Unless it says "All the tomatoes you can eat," as long as there's other food available, they're fine. It's a pretty bad analogy.

  The problem with Clear is all the stories about people who literally have no service, but still get nailed with ETF fees, asked if they have friends who would take over the contract instead, get incentives for others to join up, etc. That, and they claimed "no throttling" in their advertising, and then throttle people...

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454206)

You may have missed the updated analogy, where I added that they specifically said you can eat all the lobster you want. And it is a bad analogy, because there are different foods, but truly there are not different bytes. You can't run out of 0s but only be served 1s. Analogies do tend to break things down. But it remains true that if they said "eat all the tomatoes you want", and then you couldn't, that it is false advertising.

SpeakEasy specifically told me in pre-sales chats that I could use 100 percent of my bandwidth 24/7/365 if I wanted. Then they later told me, informally, that if I downloaded more than 100G/mo, they would cancel me. Then they threatened me with a $300 earliy termination fee, even though it was them terminating me. They offered to waive it if I didn't talk about it online. I did not pay it, and I kept talking about it online. The best part is that I took screenshots of their pre-sales chats to cover my ass -- found here [flickr.com] -- which is just nice after the fact, because several thousand people have now been made aware of their asshattery, and I can only assume they lost far more than my business with their lies.

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453194)

I worked as a Customer Service Rep for them. I'd believe it.

Going with a bait-and-switch about no-throttling though was pretty low.
(especially when they didn't even admit to *US* they were doing it until well after it started)

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (1)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453318)

And I quote:

While speed is important, capacity is what really matters. Our spectrum resources allow us to handle the high demand for many megabytes of data we know customers want.

http://www.clearwire.com/company/our-network [clearwire.com]

Re:throttling? or insufficient capacity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453848)

I can tell you that Clear absolutely, 100% does do dynamic bandwidth throttling. Yes, backhaul *can* be an issue in some places, but not in most. At least now right now. The presentation slides from their engineering staff's decision to install this garbage was already leaked out months ago. Their throttling is run by a device called a Sandvine, and is dynamically calculated based on subscriber count (to a given tower), available backhaul to the tower, and obviously, the top "winners" on that tower get limited once they hit a certain amount of bandwidth used over time. They limit the user down to ~256kbps for an undetermined amount of time. It's commonly accepted that the data limit is somewhere around 4GB before they will impose those limits on the user...which could take no time at all if you're streaming Netflix/Hulu/whatever.

Antenna Animosity (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453158)

The single biggest issue was that residents, especially those in cities around me in Dakota County, Minnesota, were unwilling to permit the antennas to be placed where Clearwire wanted them.

Clearwire planned to place the 125 foot tower in a city park and residents surrounding the park became motivated and forced the city to deny the request.

Kinda hard for them to provide the speeds they want to their customers when residents won't allow the infrastructure to be built out as the ISP originally planned.

Sucks for all involved regardless of your place in it.

Re:Antenna Animosity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453602)

The single biggest issue was that residents, especially those in cities around me in Dakota County, Minnesota, were unwilling to permit the antennas to be placed where Clearwire wanted them.

Clearwire planned to place the 125 foot tower in a city park and residents surrounding the park became motivated and forced the city to deny the request.

Kinda hard for them to provide the speeds they want to their customers when residents won't allow the infrastructure to be built out as the ISP originally planned.

125 foot tower

city park

I think the residents of Dakota County were justified in preventing Clear from putting the tower there. What kind of fucking moron would think that putting an ugly monstrosity in the middle of something that is designed to be aesthetically pleasing would be a *good* idea?

If you think about the suburb just north of there (Shoreview), they sensibly put the broadcast antennae for all the local TV stations in the middle of the fucking swamp, which is where they belong. And Lord knows we have plenty of swampland, even in Dakota County, that Clear could have proposed for an antenna location.

Re:Antenna Animosity (1)

markana (152984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453934)

And thus, the critters living in the swamp get great Internet speeds. While the rest you *outside* the swamp get nothing.

Wireless 2-way data is *not* broadcast TV!

Consumer responsibility. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453238)

I'm all for going after ClearWire. Hold them to their claims. At the same time, at what point does consumer responsibility come into play. With a tiny bit of critical analysis it is obvious that their claim is complete BS. They can't possibly deliver on it. It's akin to the snake oil salesmen of bygone days. To some degree, stupid people will lose their money to charlatans no matter what laws are in place. That said, don't expect the Government to do much in this case. ICO (Clearwire) is so deeply in bed with the current administration that any real action against them is highly unlikely.

Remember some time ago when Obama decided to delay the Digital TV cut over, and the FCC stepped in to stop it? Remember that Mr. Salemme, head of Clearwire, who had a VERY vested interest in seeing DTV delayed had both been a contributor to Obama's campaign AND just joined his "Transition Team" as a (you guessed it) technology adviser on the DTV cut over? Well, he got his way...but the plot thickens. See, Mr. Salemme is but one player. Craig McCaw, owner of ICO (ICO owns Clearwire and another interest with the same intention which Mr. Salemme was also executive director of) is also a player. Seems he maxed his donations to Mr. Obama and was an "advisor" on the DTV delay. Why does it matter? For several reasons:

1. ICO (Clearwire) was waaaaaaay behind their competition in roll-out readiness. Others were slated to go live with solutions that made use of the vacated spectrum Feb 17th of last year. They are ICO's competition. They had HUGE investments and were ready to go...but had to sit twiddling their thumbs, sitting on their enormous investments and spending more on re-planning their roll-out.

2. TV broadcaster incurred huge costs too. PBS for instance has stated that the delay cost them 22 million. That 22 million has to be covered from somewhere. Let's see, where will that 22 million come from for the PUBLIC broadcasting system? Yeah, you guessed it. The Fed covered it for them with taxpayer dollars.

3. Salemme was sure to point out that he was divested from ICO and Clearwire when he joined Obama's team. Who does he work for? Only a little interest in "Eagle River Investments". Who does ERI invest in? No one...except ICO and Clearwire.

So, in comparison with their past actions, this current matter is laughable. Good luck to those 15 complainants.

Re:Consumer responsibility. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453396)

In general if they sell that you get unlimited and you don't. It is the companies faul. I had a friend that interned years back and he mentioned that the sales people out right lied about everything. Even stating that they didn't need a line of site where at the time you did.

A support manager admitted that they throttled... (5, Interesting)

gimple (152864) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453356)

I used Clearwire for a little over a year, and dropped them due to their throttling.

Cool story bro time:

Working from home for an enterprise software company, and moving to a rural area with no real broadband other than Clearwire, I went to their store/office to sign up. Since I was using it primarily for work, I worked with a sales manager who specialized in business accounts. After making it clear what I would be using the access for, including the data volumes I would be using, I was assured that the speed and access I needed would be no problem. I even made it clear that my company used VOIP. I was even given a loaner modem, so I could test the service. After about a week of testing, I decided to sign up, putting the recurring charges on my corporate AMEX.

About three or four months of everything working swimmingly, I was on a call one day, when the phone just stopped working. I had a hardware VOIP device, so I could see the LEDs weren't working, but my other Internet access was fine. I called our VOIP support, and they figured out that the port for VOIP had been blocked.

I called the Clearwire sales guy who I had worked with--and who had assured me that VOIP would not be an issue--and he denied that the port had been blocked, but he contacted Clearwire support, and was told by a manager that indeed the port was blocked. He put me in contact with this manager, who helped me figure out a port that would not be blocked, so I could set the VOIP modem to that port. During this time, he warned me that the speed would be throttled when the system registered the usage that was coming from my IP address and port.

I saw my speeds slowly degrade to unusable on all Internet access, not just VOIP, and by this time DSL had come to my area, so I took the modem in to the store to return it. The very unfriendly person who took the return informed me that I would be hit with a ~$300 termination fee, even though I had not agreed to a contract or terms, and she could not prove that I had.

As soon as the charge hit my AMEX, I filed a dispute on the charge, which was promptly reversed, and I never heard or saw anything again.

Cool story, huh?

Re:A support manager admitted that they throttled. (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453680)

Cool story, huh?

Informative, yes. Cool, no.

Re:A support manager admitted that they throttled. (-1)

chargersfan420 (1487195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454146)

There are two holes in your story.

I used Clearwire for a little over a year...

About three or four months of everything working swimmingly...

So which was it, 'over a year' or 'three or four months'?

After about a week of testing, I decided to sign up...

...hit with a ~$300 termination fee, even though I had not agreed to a contract or terms...

So which was it, you signed up or you didn't sign up?

(Apparently I feel like being pedantic today)

Re:A support manager admitted that they throttled. (3, Insightful)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454460)

I ran 5 miles one day. The first mile was fine.

Given the premise, did I run 5 miles, or one?

Your pedantry needs work.

It makes me suspicious... (2)

hellfire (86129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453382)

I got clear internet last year, in order to cut the cable cord. For a couple months it was good, then I would frequently drop to sub 1 Mbps speeds for extended periods of time. I called support, and they told me that the best antenna was to the south of my house, so they told me to move the router to the other side of the house for best signal. The problem went away for a bit but came back, so I called again, and they said the best antenna was to the north. This was in the span of 2 weeks, so I doubt they suddenly built a brand new tower in that time period. So I moved the router back to the north and since I've not had a problem.

I'm more likely to believe that this was simply stupidity on the part of their support, and I have a hard time believing in conspiracy theories, but as evidence builds I start thinking crazy things like the fact that they are just doing a shuffle while they put me on their "do not throttle" list just to shut me up.

I know it's annecdotal and crazy...

Re:It makes me suspicious... (3, Funny)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35454420)

Dude, don't be silly, those damn antennas they planted just won't stand still! You must have missed the Clearwire support technician chasing your misbehaving antenna across a field with a whip until it sat back where it belonged. If you can't figure that out with why they told you to move your router I don't know. You should look to purchase some Clearwire binoculars to spot a misbehaving antenna as it moves across the countryside. They have even taken time to scratch some of the paint off the lenses so you can see too!

Something to show to the mall sales folk (2)

ravenscar (1662985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453404)

Ah, good. Now I have some interesting documentation to fend off the hordes of moronic sales people that Clear has stalking around the local mall.

Re:Something to show to the mall sales folk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35453578)

I wonder if they still use that shitty SalesOE system (and its equally braindead self-serve siblings, WebOE and MyAccount)... It was written entirely in PHP, used a makeshift MVC framework, and had more bugs than you can possibly imagine. Their back-office software wasn't much better, but at least it had years of stable use by other ISP's behind it. Of course, that didn't stop Clearwire management from demanding that we make huge changes to everything so as to maximize the breakage of working software...

My first programming job... ugh.

Where is this advertising you speak of? (1)

alispguru (72689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453422)

The stuff they mailed to my home (Washington DC suburb) did not say "we don't throttle". Their terms of service said specifically that they reserved the right to throttle (What? You didn't at least skim them before signing up? Hand in your geek card.).

I signed my mother-in-law up for their service anyway - she's a light user, and their service is cheap compared to the other two Great Satans of telecom in the area, Comcast and Verizon. We got a home+mobile pair for $60/month - $30/month for faster-than-3G-when-it-works-mobile isn't bad.

One word: Good (1)

ThousandStars (556222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453522)

When Clearwire did this to me [jseliger.com] , all I did was write a lousy blog post about it and tell my friends not to use their service. Seeing something more substantive is impressive.

TOS (1)

toxonix (1793960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35453694)

Their advertising and especially sales people and the TOS don't agree. I had an account for a while, but got a backup DSL from ATT. I ended up using only the backup line because even though it was the lowest priced package from ATT, it always worked and was always fast enough.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...