dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-14 12:48:49: It appears that Comcast is tinkering with the idea of offering higher caps with higher tiers of service, and will again shake up their speed options sometime in the next year for the majority of users. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next
Weatherman1
join:2012-09-14
Bel Air, MD

1 recommendation

Weatherman1

Member

Caps.

If Comcast institutes caps which result in people getting charged for going over, they will lose more customers to FiOS in my area - plain and simple.

Right now, the price of Comcast with promos is about $10-$20 month cheaper than the equivalent FiOS package. That is the main reason why I stay with Comcast. I would much rather pay another $10-$20 to not worry about getting hit with going over a cap, plus have way more upload speed as an added bonus.
nysports4evr
Premium Member
join:2010-01-23

2 recommendations

nysports4evr to JigglyWiggly

Premium Member

to JigglyWiggly

Re: datttt

said by JigglyWiggly:

if no cap on 50+ tiers...
then i will give cumcast a hi five
that wud actually be awesome

Please stop typing like that.

bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC

bobjohnson to IowaCowboy

Premium Member

to IowaCowboy

Re: Winning the cord cutting war

That's what the bundle pricing is about.

QoS_not_Caps
@comcast.net

QoS_not_Caps

Anon

Tucson, AZ Gets Lower Caps

Tucson, AZ is getting much lower caps starting on October 1.

Economy 300GB
Economy Plus 300GB
Internet Essentials 300GB
Performance Starter 300GB
Performance 300GB
Blast 350GB
Extreme 50 450GB
Extreme 105 600GB

Overage is $10/50GB

»customer.comcast.com/hel ··· s-tucson

These caps are behavior of sudo monopolies using their position to extort more revenue from customers. If there is really a bandwidth congestion problem, the real solution is QoS and bandwidth caps, not usage caps. The problem is the average user can't easily understand QoS and it doesn't easily bring in more revenue.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

2 edits

Wilsdom to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: Even a 300GB cap is reasonable for internet video

Was your bill cut dramatically to like a few dollars? No? Then you're paying more for less. Stop being so happy about it

whfsdude
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC

whfsdude to Nightfall

Premium Member

to Nightfall

Re: Reasonable

said by Nightfall:

I really think you need to come back to reality. The simple fact of the matter is that less than 1% of residential customers use over 250gb of bandwidth in a month. It isn't like people are going over like crazy and the cap was never enforced. The bandwidth cap is not like the amount of minutes on a cell phone plan.

But you have to understand that most users don't know or keep track of their bandwidth usage. Power users, sure. So they don't really know how much they are using or will use.

When there is viable competition (FiOS) that states Comcast charges overages if you use more than your allotted data, which provider do you think people will generally choose?

Wireless is probably a bad example to use because so much of it depends on the phone selection over the actual service.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom to Nightfall

Member

to Nightfall

Re: Been saying this for years now...

"Power users" are surely more interested in actual data transfer, not playing with speedtest.net like an infant giggling over a Fisher Price play station.
Wilsdom

1 recommendation

Wilsdom to elray

Member

to elray

Re: Not surprising

500GB is abuse. Recognize that you are the victim. Go to a woman's shelter and they can help you get out of that toxic relationship.
Expand your moderator at work

RR206
join:2001-12-11
united state

RR206

Member

Not a peep.

And I've done 2+TB in a month,1TB regularly on 50Mb.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to IPPlanMan

MVM

to IPPlanMan

Re: Been saying this for years now...

They're giving you a larger cap if you give them more money.

This really isn't that complicated to figure out.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

elefante72 to QoS_not_Caps

Member

to QoS_not_Caps

Re: Tucson, AZ Gets Lower Caps

300 GB is not reasonable for a family w 2+ kids that actually use media. I easily go over 500GB a month and that is 2012, how about 2014. Do you think they are going to be generous in caps. So today, unless I paid $100, I would pay $100 with all of the overages with no upper limit. You think some actuary figured that out

Tuscon is obviously a non-competitive area that they are price testing, they just happen to be the lab rats. They would never try it in my area, because I would just order a truck roll. Verizon, earthlink, WISP, TWC...its a bounty in my area and that's why I only pay $105 for triple play.

So as in wireless, so in wireline. Considering that transit fees are pennies per gig, this is quite the moneymaker. This makes SMS look like a mild margin hog. In fact assuming most of the consumption is provided by CDN in net, there are ZERO transit costs AND Comcast gets to charge for CDN hookups in their datacenters. Double dip....

Again, charging $10 for zero incremental cost. Quite a haul.

Anyone who thinks these caps are reasonable doen't understand the cost structure and just how profitable this stuff is.

Greed is Good!
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os to QoS_not_Caps

Member

to QoS_not_Caps
Perhaps I spoke too soon. Those aren't great incentives for caps to move up to the higher speeds.

Blast 500GB, Extreme 50 1TB, Extreme 105 2TB, now that I would find reasonable.

JigglyWiggly
join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

JigglyWiggly to nysports4evr

Member

to nysports4evr

Re: datttt

no
go be an engrish teacher if you care about what people's grammar on the internet is

Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA

Jerm to iansltx

Member

to iansltx

Re: Problem MATH

article has been edited to reflect this now, makes more sense!

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

1 recommendation

Nightfall to Wilsdom

MVM

to Wilsdom

Re: Been saying this for years now...

said by Wilsdom:

"Power users" are surely more interested in actual data transfer, not playing with speedtest.net like an infant giggling over a Fisher Price play station.

Yup, I meant to say that. Speeds are just a bonus.
Nightfall

1 recommendation

Nightfall to whfsdude

MVM

to whfsdude

Re: Reasonable

said by whfsdude:

said by Nightfall:

I really think you need to come back to reality. The simple fact of the matter is that less than 1% of residential customers use over 250gb of bandwidth in a month. It isn't like people are going over like crazy and the cap was never enforced. The bandwidth cap is not like the amount of minutes on a cell phone plan.

But you have to understand that most users don't know or keep track of their bandwidth usage. Power users, sure. So they don't really know how much they are using or will use.

When there is viable competition (FiOS) that states Comcast charges overages if you use more than your allotted data, which provider do you think people will generally choose?

Wireless is probably a bad example to use because so much of it depends on the phone selection over the actual service.

Very true, but consumers aren't going over the limit like crazy. The limit is set to high that nearly all consumers can use Netflix, email, and browse like crazy and never hit it. Now, when consumers start hitting that limit, Comcast will either need to educate them on the limit or increase the limit.

As for competition in every Comcast market, wake me up when that happens.
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os to elefante72

Member

to elefante72

Re: Tucson, AZ Gets Lower Caps

I wasn't aware Comcast was in Tucson. I always thought that was a Cox area.

But CenturyLink is the telco, so I'm not surprised that they're going to get the worst of the worst. They've been really slow at launching Prism, and they scare cable the least (VZ scares them the most, at least until the Spectrumco deal).
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
united state

1 recommendation

etaadmin to Robert

Member

to Robert

Re: datttt

said by Robert:

said by JigglyWiggly:

if no cap on 50+ tiers...
then i will give cumcast a hi five
that wud actually be awesome

Que?

No mas caps.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to elefante72

Member

to elefante72

Re: Tucson, AZ Gets Lower Caps

said by elefante72:

300 GB is not reasonable for a family w 2+ kids that actually use media. I easily go over 500GB a month and that is 2012, how about 2014.

Guess what it's not 2014 yet. Also if you go over 500 GB you have 2 chocies, up your tier or pay the overage.
88615298

1 recommendation

88615298 (banned) to RR206

Member

to RR206

Re: Not a peep.

said by RR206:

And I've done 2+TB in a month,1TB regularly on 50Mb.

And YOU'RE the reason for these caps in the first place. 2 TBs is simply redicuous. I know, you're only seeding Linux distros.
88615298

1 recommendation

88615298 (banned)

Member

Still complaints

Geez people. Comcast unlike other companies are actually upping the caps. I will say that Charter had a 500 GB cap on it's 100 Mbps tier for 3 years now. Of course now Comcast exceeds that.

Anyway these caps are much better than the old ones and face the vast majority won't come close to the new caps and at least you won't get cut off now. Though I think a cap free time zone in the middle of the night is something they and other ISPs should have.

And before someone chimes in and says something stupid like "no caps" well that train left the station already so let's deal with reality.
88615298

88615298 (banned) to elefante72

Member

to elefante72

Re: Tucson, AZ Gets Lower Caps

said by elefante72:

300 GB is not reasonable for a family w 2+ kids that actually use media. I easily go over 500GB a month and that is 2012, how about 2014. Do you think they are going to be generous in caps. So today, unless I paid $100, I would pay $100 with all of the overages with no upper limit. You think some actuary figured that out

Under the old cap you'd hit 250 GB and then be cut off. Would you rather have that?
88615298

88615298 (banned) to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan

Re: Been saying this for years now...

said by IPPlanMan:

If this is indeed true, then I've been right about what I've said for years: Faster speeds results in higher levels of usage.

Sorry but Netflix HD streams stream at 5 Mbps whether you on a 15 Mbps connection to 300 Mbps conenction.
Expand your moderator at work

ikyuaoki
join:2011-04-12
Wichita, KS

ikyuaoki

Member

cap boost

I have the Cox internet, premier tier.

If I do gets another boost cap from 250GB to 500GB that means I would get 1TB total of two sub accounts under my premier account for sure!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to Wilsdom

Premium Member

to Wilsdom

Re: Even a 300GB cap is reasonable for internet video

said by Wilsdom:

Was your bill cut dramatically to like a few dollars? No? Then you're paying more for less. Stop being so happy about it

I'm all for a bill-by-byte system. Others will pay more & I'll pay a little less. But most customers prefer flat rate pricing. So I won't hold my breath on seeing a rationale pricing scheme anytime soon.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by FFH5:

I'm all for a bill-by-byte system. Others will pay more & I'll pay a little less.

Only fools believe that such a billing system will ever benefit them for non existent utilization.
34764170

34764170 (banned) to Wilsdom

Member

to Wilsdom

Re: Been saying this for years now...

So true. I couldn't care less about the typical higher speed tiers a provider has with the typical caps they have. Even if there are caps the caps at the highest tier is what should be on the lowest tier. I'd much rather have a 20Mbps unlimited connection over a 100Mbps connection with 250Gb cap.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to elefante72

Premium Member

to elefante72

Re: Tucson, AZ Gets Lower Caps

said by elefante72:

Anyone who thinks these caps are reasonable doen't understand the cost structure and just how profitable this stuff is.

therefore you believe this is reasonable?

Because you obviously don't understand.

If you lived in a DC or paid for backbone to your door, transit would be pennies, however you hired comcast to get it from the Headend to your house which is a much more expensive part of the trip. They had to build out and maintain a private HFC plant that reaches every home wheter they subscribe or not, and continue to expand the plant capacity to mimic the maximum useage based on pricing for a much higher contention rate.
So when your type useage pushes the node wide average up, the entire node must be improved to add that capacity at the cost of many thousand of dollars, even though you might move tomorrow leave thos improvments unpaid for.
There solution is to charge everyone nationwide an average rate for the first XXXGB but to charge your excess at a rate that beins to cover improvements across the node if you consistantly use more.
As you point out YOU have alternetives, USE THEM.

keeping comcast in the black with an average profit of around 10% is not greedy, it is a reasonable and prudent business plan.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next