 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 | reply 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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| reply 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! |
|
| reply 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. |
|
| reply 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
kudos:2 | reply to iansltx
Re: Problem MATH article has been edited to reflect this now, makes more sense! |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Comcast
·Callcentric
 ·Site5.com
| reply 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.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
| reply 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.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
| reply 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
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | reply to Rob
Re: datttt said by Rob: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. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply 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. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply 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. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | 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. |
|
|
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply 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? |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply 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. |
|
| 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! |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply 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.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by Linklist: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. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply 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. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| reply 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. |
|
