Does your internet provider set limits on your usage?

Do you get charged MORE for using more than the set limit?

No they don't, but if they ever did, you can rest assured I would have a different provider, or a correction on the bill, by the end of the week.

Nope. I'm pretty-sure that any ISP that sets a limit
charges more when/if that limit is exceeded.
On a 'related' note, I heard something that 'disturbed' me
(Okay. pissed me off!) 'bout AT&T this evening. They provide
and UNLIMITED HIGH-SPEED Texting Service on their "Smart Phone".
(For a price.)
Alrighty... BUT... it seems that IF you fall into the top 5 %
of their users on any given month -and that really is an extemely high !
amount of data - AT&T "throttles back" (!!) the "high-speed".
(Yes, it's in the fine print".) Apparently it is very fine.

Among other things... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I would like to know what the point ! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] is of calling it UNLIMITED ?!?

(At those prices (AT&T is NOT a cut-rate service...) HOW DARE THEY?
(Since when ! has AT&T practiced "shady" tactics??)
And fine print/schmine print [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] - I think they oughta be stopped or be
required to READ THE SPECIFIC TEENIE PRINT aloud to the signer(s) of the
contract get their intials on it AND...
get the customer's signature on a seperate dopcument ! that states,
"Yeah-Yeah; I read it."
Whatcha all think?

I think they shouldn't be allowed to call it what it ain't.

That's kind of like a lifetime warranty that is limited to 84 years, because only 5% of people live longer than that.

I have exceeded the limit for the month, so now it is 'shaped' till next roll over ,20th of the month.It's very slow, ok for email ,ok here, and Y/A ,useless for anything else ,down loading pictures ,videos,games etc.....I'll up grade before the 20th since it has been happening on a regular basis.I'll need to ring them, I cannot get into my account because they demand a phone number, which wasn't part of the deal when I signed up,and before now had no probs getting into my account .
jaaj,the b....s will screw you any way they can think of, and since a lot of their customers are young people who don't think to check fine , they get away with it long enough to really cash in.

Tater Salad wrote:I think they shouldn't be allowed to call it what it ain't.
That's kind of like a lifetime warranty that is limited to 84 years, because only 5% of people live longer than that.

Tater, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

YEAH ! Me too. };>

"jaaj,the b....s will screw you any way they can think of, and since a
lot of their customers are young people who don't think to check fine ,
they get away with it long enough to really cash in."

Morning (?), Roxanna ! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I agree, but what really bothers me is it is AT&T.
They're not "new" and they damned-sure understand business "ethics".
I'm shocked [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] and more than a little disappointed. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Shame on them. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

AT&T... funny you should mention them! Seems they started a new way of handling internet usage for everyone! The price sucks too! It's almost $40 just for internet and now there is a limit.
I am off to find another internet provider. Jerks!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I'm so ashamed! of them... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Bree,
"Jerks" works for me... ! -(among other descriptions/words/non-flattery...)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] GOOD idea! It will be much less attractive to 'them' [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(AKA: "those A** - - - - -") if the bulk of their "users" resent being used
and defect.
(I soo hope! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]) *tsk* ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Did you know AT&T is associated with Yahoo? Seems Yahoo supplies internet to other companies... wonder where the real B.S. starts!
Internet gets really slow and crappy here too and we get a notice saying they will charge $10 more for each 50 GB we go over our new limit.
I got better service when I wasn't a long time standing customer!

Breezey Breezey wrote:Did you know AT&T is associated with Yahoo? Seems Yahoo supplies internet to other companies... wonder where the real B.S. starts!
Internet gets really slow and crappy here too and we get a notice saying they will charge $10 more for each 50 GB we go over our new limit.
I got better service when I wasn't a long time standing customer!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] No. I did not know that! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It explains (? ...kinda...) a LOT.
I know a lot about AT&T - and enough [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] about Yahoo! to now
know where to place the blame.
(NOT that AT&T aren't grown-ups and definitley! know better !)
I 'suppose' in this lovely [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] (THANK YEW SOOO MUCH, "SHRUB" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.])
... "economy" (?) or lack thereof... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] they think this is an acceptable "business practice"
Wanna see how fast they learn differently?
(I mean AT&T, not !! -*yick-pooey!*- Yapoo... )
There is not now and apparently never was / had been ! any hope for
- *yick-pooey!*- Yapoo. ...moons...

Ja'aj wrote:"jaaj,the b....s will screw you any way they can think of, and since a
lot of their customers are young people who don't think to check fine ,
they get away with it long enough to really cash in."

Morning (?), Roxanna ! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I agree, but what really bothers me is it is AT&T.
They're not "new" and they damned-sure understand business "ethics".
I'm shocked [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] and more than a little disappointed. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Shame on them. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Okay, here's the thing, they might understand business ethics, but they also understand pretending to have them. How many decades were we forced to lease a phone from them, since nobody was allowed to hook up a non-AT&T phone to the bell system, which controlled about 95% of the market? it was $1.50 month for life for a basic model that was worth about $25.

So my point is, this treatment of their customers as "Anything we can get away with goes is NOT new. It's the same model, just a different color, different grill, and a different bumper.

". How many decades were we forced to lease a phone from them... " etc. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi, Tater,
IDK. I only worked for them - "Mountain Bell" -
beginning in late 1981. I don't even know what your srevice was called.
I know NYNEX and Chicago Bell (I loved! Charile) and a bunch! of others
but not that one.
I do know that it was BELL property. They owned that line and that network.
The Feds dictated that there would only be 1 operating phone comany per
"area" - where ever that was.
Also, I do know that once upon a time "Bell" did "spot checks" on "ringers"
to see if someone/anyone had bootlegged equipment they weren't paying for
and - if it was a bell device- theycontcted the user and indicated that
they had 2 options - disconnect the botlegged item or pony up. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That was also the way the Feds wanted it.
AT&T finally had to DE-regulate (THAT was all uphill, boy...),
in order to market multiple inventions etc.
(The "reasoning" (?) was that - since a phone was in pretty-much
by now every household ... AT&T had an unfair advantage. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I can see that.
What I can't see is WHY the Feds didn't want the "phone" company
to have competition. At&T had to fight! like
(the world's largest corporation [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]) a tiger for deregulation.
(Personally, I'm sorry they won.)
We had THE best telephone service in the world.
("Had" is the operative word.) Yes. "Security".
(AT&T WAS "NORAD" - etc.)
How would that have jeopardized 'national' security?

What DID jeopardize national security (IMO) was deregulation.
And it cost AT&T HUGELY to do it. AT&T was REQUIRED to provide a DUPLICATE
network for -whoever- wanted to attempt phone service -where ever-.
I do not remember non-Bell "sets" being available and AT&T forbidding their use.
( I do remember Bell asking that users notify them of a set not theirs) Seems fair.

In so far as maufacturing telephones Bell wouldn't allow... that would be damned dumb!
on the part of the manufacturer if most phone services wouldn't/couldn't allow them to be used -for openers. ??

We had Bell of Pennsylvania, which eventually became Mid-Atlantic Bell, when it merged with New Jersey Bell, and I believe a couple of others. As far as leasing the phones from them, we had no choice, as you couldn't buy a phone, not from Bell, not from At&T, not from anybody. If you wanted a phone, you had to lease it from them. That only ended when the Federal government forced Ma Bell and AT&T to break up into smaller regional parts. Before that, in much of the country, you could only get local service from whichever Bell Company had the local franchise, and you could only get long distance from AT&T; all of the Bell companies as well as AT&T were part of the Bell System. There were only a few scattered areas, almost all rural or sparsely populated, which had a different local or long distance service.

Bell Atlantic eventually became Verizon. Part of the idea behind deregulation (which came a few years after the breakup into the Baby Bells) was that if they wanted to compete for long distance service, they had to share their lines at a fair price, since it wouldn't make much sense to have 4 or 5 sets of lines strung everywhere, and they had to allow competing local service as well.

Hiya, Tater!
Thanks! I knew who belonged to which Bell Operating Companies - at one time.
I knew all of them - at one time - but not any more.
OF COURSE... there aren't any, any more... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I understand Deregulation. And Divestiture. Clearly. I don't like it ... , however,
I do understand it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] (I worked for Ma-Whozzit for 5 or 6 years on either side
of and during both Deregulation and Divestiture.
It was my job to 'explain it' to our customers. .
(I also understand that if AT&T had not wanted Deregulation and Divestiture
- neither would have happened.)
As it was, it took them quite a few years to accomplish it ... and if it
hadn't been for [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Judge Green's [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] wanting to be recorded
in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] history books... it might still be a goal and not a fact.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] STOOPIDEST ... ...
It was the least-beneficial-to-the-public move I know of -
to allow the dismantling of (The Very! Best Phone Service In The World !)
- a benevolent monopoly - not solely perpetuated by the Feds... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It always struck me as funny (BOTH odd and Ha-Ha) that before D&D
I occasionally heard (and so did most-everyone else in the business office)
"BOY... if there was some place else I could go..."
( ^said with annoyance and frustration) and as troubleshooter for the business office,
- I, - upon a very rare occasion -, said, "I understand - and I assure you,
[sir or ma'am] if there were an alternative available, I would provide you with their phone number. And AFTER D&D the same customers were protective ! of AT&T.
(Hell if I know; I decided it was a combination of things :
NOOObody likes it when the FEDS disrupt "things" ; the phone service was waaay!-confusing to most and they had LIKED being told when and where and WHAT their choices were.
(BUT...) Do you know what? That - and variations of that - were not nearly! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] as
frequent (and by no means as prevalent) as I had expected when I began there)
I was very surprised about that.
Maybe because ... I had always felt vaguely hostile to : *play trumpets here* :
~ "THE PHONE COMPANY !! " ~(<-- said, please, with appropriate [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]fanfare)
-not because they'd ever actually done anything to me - but because I knew if
they ever did ... I could either accept their 'solution' - or fire them. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
In that respect alone "we" were like a utility. (We were not - EVER - a utility.)

AND... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] as you say... there was no alternative - not unless I wanted
to move to "some-place-else" ... where they had a provider that was
not Ma Bell ... and that always seemed a bit far to go.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
...So ... "firing" them seemed undesirable.. As for the phone rental(s) ...
Have you bought a phone, lately?
ANY of them hold up the way a 500 set or a 2500 set did/does?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Nope. ("Planned obsolescence"... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Bah. Now ... THERE ! is a CHEAT....)
Plus, it was a minuscule fee. M I N U S C U L E .... I say! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
AND... WE REPAIRED THEM ... FOR FREE. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ALWAYS...
No matter what make/model etc. - or how expensive! - AND... no matter ! how
STOOOPID and o b v i o u s l y (if not deliberate)...N E G L I G E N T ...
the "how" occurrence of the damage /destruction was.
And /If a customer simply wanted a new COLOR-on-a-whim... we fetched it out
to you/them - at no charge. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

PLUS... *sniff*( [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]) - the "rent"/lease of phone equipment was after ! the 1st set
- which was provided along with the chirruped, "number please [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" or dial tone.

While I agree with most of what you've said, we were charged for each and every phone, and it was $150 a month for their most basic model, which was a rotary wall phone, no frills. A push button (touch tone) phone was more per month, pus an extra $1.00 per month for touch tone service.

Now that might not sound like much, until you multiply it by 12, which was 18 dollars per year, every year, for as long as you had the phone. Sure repairs or replacements were free, since they were already charging you $180 every ten years. If that same phone lasted 30 years, awesome! After paying $540 for the lease of the phone, they gave you a new one!

Now, some phones on the market may not last nearly that long, but I still have the phone I bought in 1987, 25 years ago, for about $25. That's a dollar per year, instead of $18, for a savings of......$425!