dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-18 11:17:09: Comcast has introduced caps as high as 600 GB in Tucson as the company moves forward with the idea of offering higher caps for faster services. ..


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

1 edit

Don't go cheap on me now

After reading about the increased caps last week, I thought that Comcast would be following through with 500gb at the Blast tier. Apparently, that isn't the case in Tucson where the same tier is 350gb. I don't go over the 250gb level and I am on the Blast tier, so bandwidth isn't the issue for me, but it would still be nice to throw people who have this higher tier of speed a bone or two. 350gb is not enough for the excessive users at that tier. Should be at least 400gb or 500gb.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

said by Nightfall:

I don't go over the 250gb level and I am on the Blast tier, so bandwidth isn't the issue for me,


350gb is not enough. Should be at least 400gb or 500gb.

ERROR!!!

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

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

Fixed my statement. Forgot to add "for the excessive users at that tier".
--
My domain - Nightfall.net
JoelC707
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL
kudos:5

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

Actually I think he's picking on the gb vs GB thing.
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
You know the caps will be designed to gain a bit of revenue at each level.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

4 recommendations

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

Private enterprise wanting a return on their investment? Say it isn't so!

You can combine my usage totals for the last six months and they don't add up to 300GB, let alone 600GB, so I'm hard pressed to feel any sympathy at all for the people who will be impacted by these caps.

600GB / 30 days = 20GB/day = 1.8mbit/s, sustained, 24/7

In actuality, someone who wants to use 600GB/mo will burden the network even more, the 95th percentile for such a user would likely be in the double digits of mbit/s.

A connection capable of supporting that would have cost thousands of dollars a decade ago (a dedicated connection STILL commands that kind of money) and here we have people bellyaching about connections that cost a fraction of that.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

SHHHHHH! that kind of talk on here won't be tolerated and you'll be flagged and your comments will be removed. Karl and his fan boys what tolerate it.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
You've gotta be kidding me.

If that's the case, let's go back to the days of charging multiple dollars per gigabyte on a HDD.

Lets go back to the days of charging .25c per megabyte on mobile data plans.

After all, that was acceptable a decade ago right?

If it's not that much of a problem, then I'll pm you my address, phone number, and send you a round-trip plane ticket so you can come down and have Comcast change my service to the 105 tier at your cost.

After all, it's not that much money right?

If Comcast wants to sell me a 25Mb/s line, then I take that as the ability to use up to 25Mb/s however I see fit as much as I see fit. The onus is not on me to support that bandwidth. I'm paying for it. The onus is on Comcast to support it.

If Comcast can't support ONE user using 25Mb/s a month, then they're overselling their services; and if that's the case, caps are not the answer... a more robust backend and last-mile is.

BTW: I'm having a hard time believing Comcast for anything right now when they state that using the Xbox 360 for Xfinity TV on Demand does not count against you. How that doesn't fly in the face of our non-existent net neutrality rules that aren't enforced by the FCC blows my mind.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

2 recommendations

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

You seriously expect a connection with a 1 to 1 contention ratio at residential pricing? Good luck with that. As I said, dedicated connections that provide the type of bandwidth you desire still cost thousands of dollars.

Bellyache all you want, you're squarely in the minority, and nobody outside of that minority takes you seriously. A 250GB cap is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of internet users, 600GB even less so, so I'm not seeing the problem. Next you'll whine about supposed regulatory capture, but good luck convincing the FCC or anybody else about the unfairness of a policy that impacts a miniscule slice of the internet population.

Usage totals/95th percentile from my last three DSL billing periods:

7/15: 22.93GB down/5.84GB up, 0.22mbit/s
8/15: 26.79GB down/9.54GB up, 0.32mbit/s
9/15: 18.92GB down/3.32GB up, 0.28mbit/s

Yeah, it's totally fair to expect me to pay the same as you, when you intend to use hundreds of gigabytes, while regularly imposing a megabit load measured in the double digits. 8-)

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

1 edit

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

Sounds like there are "morons and shills" on both sides. Especially those who have done no research on where we have come from and where we are now. The best thing we can do is to inform ourselves as best as we can and to debate the facts. So far, there are very few, if any, facts being tossed around here.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

said by Nightfall:

Especially those who have done no research on where we have come from and where we are now.

Well, I got my start in the ISP business, so I do have that perspective to take into account. On the other side of things, I've on the customer side of business connections ranging from T-1s to gigabit MAE connections, and of course my own experience with residential connectivity.

Speaking personally, and going from memory, my own connectivity to the internet has gone something like this:

1996: 14.4kbit/s - dialup - $20/mo
1998: 36.6kbit/s - dialup - $20/mo
1999: 256kbit/s - WISP - $40/mo
2002: 3mbit/s DS/256kbit/s US - TW cable - $35/mo
2003: 1.5mbit/s DS/384kbit/s US - Verizon DSL - $30/mo
2005: 3.0mbit/s DS/768kbit/s US - Verizon DSL - $40/mo
2009: 10mbit/s DS/1mbit/s US - TW cable - $45/mo
2011: 10mbit/s DS/1mbit/s US - Verizon DSL - $60/mo
2012: 6mbit/s DS/1mbit/s US - Frontier DSL - $60/mo

I've gone backwards at times, depending on what's available when I've moved, but the bottom line is I'm currently getting 24 times the speed of my first broadband connection, for $20/mo more, and if you take inflation into account that's really not a bad deal. $40 in 1999 is worth about $54 today, so I'm paying $6/mo more for 24 times the speed.

That's just my perspective, YMMV, but we've come a long way, and I wish people would consider that when they are inclined to complain about the state of American broadband.

skuv

@rr.com

Re: Don't go cheap on me now

ALL ISP's oversell. All of them, every single one of them.

If they don't, then they will not stay in business. It's financially impossible.

No ISP can afford 1:1 connections for EVERY customer. They oversell because statistically that is what works. To do otherwise is stupid and business suicide.

Of course they can support "ONE user using 25Mb/sec a month." But they have millions of customers.

And using Xfinity on Demand shouldn't count against a user's cap, even if Net Neutrality is enforced. Their normal on demand doesn't get counted towards any data cap, even though it is data that is only being streamed to you, using finite resources to encode it and get it to you?

So what's the difference? The delivery method? That's trivial.
tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
said by PapaMidnight:

If Comcast wants to sell me a 25Mb/s line, then I take that as the ability to use up to 25Mb/s however I see fit as much as I see fit. The onus is not on me to support that bandwidth. I'm paying for it. The onus is on Comcast to support it.

Ah, but Comcast doesn't want to sell you an uncapped 25 Mb/s line. They want to sell you a 25 Mb/s line with a 250 GB monthly cap.

If you want an uncapped 25 Mb/s line, you can feel free to buy Metro Ethernet service from a business-class provider for $1000. If you max it out for every second of every day, they won't care -- because you've actually paid for dedicated bandwidth.

Once you have that dedicated connection, you can feel free to start your own ISP with it. See how long you can stay in business offering uncapped 25 Mb/s service for $50 a month.

Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3

Grace Period

Is the grace period just for the first year after the implementation of the new caps?

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Caps are not an issue for me

I subscribe to cable TV so caps are not an issue for me.

Comcast is a cable company, and their core product is cable television and high speed Internet and phone is a side business for them. Their Internet would be like 4-5 times more expensive without the pay tv revenues as maintaining cable plants and customer service is expensive.

If it was not for customer backlash or regulatory pressure, they would require that you purchase cable tv in order to subscribe to Internet (like Verizon requiring a landline to get DSL).

The could allow competing ISPs access to their network and still be profitable because they could charge those ISPs for access to their network (like CLECs are charged by the ILEC for network access).
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town).

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

Profit margins would still be much higher for internet than for TV
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

Not if the revenue from internet was to be relied upon to maintain and expand the HFC plant.

revenue neut

@windomnet.com
Cable TV is nobody's core business. The programmers take all the revenue from cable TV. Internet is where it is at. Phoen is a great revenue maker also.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

said by revenue neut :

Cable TV is nobody's core business. The programmers take all the revenue from cable TV. Internet is where it is at. Phoen is a great revenue maker also.

Link? Source?
--
My domain - Nightfall.net
tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

said by Nightfall:

Link? Source?

See page 50 of the Comcast 10-K: »files.shareholder.com/downloads/···t10K.pdf

2011 Residential video revenue: $8.7 billion
2011 Programming costs: $7.9 billion
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
DirecTV. Dish. "Cable" is their core business.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
Do you think their core product will continue to be video? I have my doubts.

»gigaom.com/broadband/the-cable-i···d-right/
Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
you do have to buy cable tv in order to subscribe to Internet.

Or it that that limited basic + Internet is about the same price as Internet on it's own.

Now why not just a basic line fee and then cut the price or Internet and cable tv.

But make the line fee be on it's own.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

Maybe to protect cable TV revenue, they could base the caps on what tv package the customer subscribes to (such as low caps for Internet only subscribers to no caps for customers subscribing to two or more premium channels).

I still think the only good way to get quality TV programming is to subscribe to cable. Streaming services still don't give you access to live tv such as the Weather Channel, Fox News, local newscasts, etc. I also love reality shows such as Cops.

When you have a node full of people streaming the same content that is offered by the cable provider, they are consuming network resources for those wanting to use other applications such as gaming, web surfing, etc. Shift the streaming users to the content offered by the cableco, that frees up network resources for HSI users that use other applications as the cableco already has network resources allocated to hd programming in the form of their cable offerings. That is why Comcast has every right to manage their networks. Cable TV is a regulated monopoly and streaming services such as Netflix undercut cable TV as they don't have to meet the same standards as cable tv but they consume their resources.

I subscribe to cable tv and always will.
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town).
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

3 edits

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

" quality TV programming is to subscribe to cable. Streaming services still don't give you access to live tv such as the Weather Channel, Fox News, local newscasts,"

Quality, Weather Channel and Fox News in the same paragraph.

Coming from a cable rip off shill.

I was stuck in bed sick last Saturday watching the Military Channel on Comcast. 5 times in a row the same shit commercial for Star Furniture, some effeminate guys being towed to buy crap furniture, some weight loss crap and hair regeneration garbage over and over again every 10 min for 5 min.

I turned the TV off. Yeah, real quality programming chock full of idiotic adds.

Maybe I should watch the Weather Channel, much better. Paying $130 / month for the cable and $100 for Internet access to be bombarded with the garbage adds is real "value".

As far as "regulated monopoly", IowaCowboy, read up on regulatory capture.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

Here the commercials are for ambulance chasing lawyers, bad credit approved car loans, and free government funded cell phones for the welfare beneficiaries. These are during local newscasts and it's not like I am watching Jerry Springer (trailer trash cheating on their wives) or Maury Povich (teen moms seeking paternity tests to see who is the baby daddy). The trash on those shows are more entertaining that the lowlife products (such as guaranteed phone service for people who've been shut off for non payment and the same bad credit approved car loans aired during the evening news) advertised during those trash shows.

Recently, they have been playing political ad after political ad and they will play a Scott Brown ad and the next ad is for Elizabeth Warren. I have not seen any Romney-Ryan ads as Democrats always win Massachusetts like Republicans always win Alabama in presidential election. I am sure the ads regarding the ballot questions will be flooding the airwaves as we get closer to election day. As for my political views, we'll save that for the red room.
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town).
covfam

join:2012-03-05
Black River Falls, WI
er no i dont have charter cable tv, just charter internet with thier 30 meg tier, i wasnt tied or required to get anything else, in fact i have direct tv for my video needs (charter tv sux bad) perhaps comcast has different requirements,
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
Unfortunately, I don't think it's their core product anymore. It's more the side business with phone and Internet being the main draw. Certainly Comcast provides better Internet than cable.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

Many times it is cheaper to bundle tv, Internet, and phone. In our area, Comcast has triple play bundles starting at prices not much more than standalone Internet and they give you faster speeds with bundling. I like having a home phone (try telling a 911 dispatcher your exact location when you are in the middle of an armed home invasion or have a child that is not breathing). And in our area, if you dial 911 on a cell phone, it goes to the state police dispatch in Northampton (MA) and you have to tell them the city or town where the emergency is and they transfer you to the local dispatch AND you have to give them the exact location. With a landline, it goes to the local dispatch AND they have your exact location on their screen. When someone is in cardiac arrest, every second counts.
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town).
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: Caps are not an issue for me

said by IowaCowboy:

try telling a 911 dispatcher your exact location when you are in the middle of an armed home invasion

There's a solution to home invasions that includes the numbers '911', but it has an M and a 1 in front of them.

Joking aside, you make a great case for having a landline. My POTS line is a lousy $27/mo after taxes and fees, or 90 cents a day, why would I give up that peace of mind? I call 911, they have my location instantly. Even in areas with wireless E911 they don't necessarily get an accurate location, and it may take time for the location to resolve.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

?

Which duopoly company started this first? AT&T, Comcast or Time Warner?

IIRC it was Time Warner floating the idea, then followed by Comcast's "SOFT CAP POLICY" followed by AT&T's HARD CAP policy.. and since that went unchallened, Comcast thinks they can shove down the consumer's throats, or backsides a hard cap policy..

I guess it sucks to live where these companies have free reign to screw over the consumer with usage based billing AND have a franchise lock on the communities they serve. No wonder the population is moving to the eastern half of the country instead of moving west.. wher infrastructure is more developed.
AndyDufresne
Premium
join:2010-10-30
Chanhassen, MN

Re: ?

said by tmc8080:

No wonder the population is moving to the eastern half of the country instead of moving west.. wher infrastructure is more developed.

You are way off on that tid bid of information, just comparing Arizona to NY. Arizona is growing 3x as fast as NY not to mention other NE states. 1.42% vs .45%

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.···wth_rate

By the way these companies are pack hunters, it is not a question if VZ will have caps, it is when?
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by tmc8080:

I guess it sucks to live where these companies have free reign to screw over the consumer with usage based billing AND have a franchise lock on the communities they serve. No wonder the population is moving to the eastern half of the country instead of moving west.. wher infrastructure is more developed.

What abject nonsense.

No one is moving east, or west, based on broadband availability.
Nor is the east "more developed".
Nor is any location "franchise locked".

Where do you get this stuff?
Bob4
Account deleted

join:2012-07-22
New Jersey

Why not just get rid of the caps?

Why not just get rid of the caps entirely?
Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Why not just get rid of the caps?

Because think of the poor Comcast executives who can't bring in a new revenue stream!

And previous posters were correct in stating that cable TV is not that profitable, nowhere near as profitable as broadband. There's basically no regulations on providing broadband, and most of the fees are straight profit. Would this be the case if cable TV died off? Maybe not. But it is the case in the current marketplace.

buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

good for comcast.. what about everyone else

Good news for Comcast customers hopefull in areas like my snowbird residence in Central FL will get a boost , but my main Address in IL is still screwed ( on ATT DSL). OK wheres ATT's rebuttal on this, with there tired DSL and Uverse service caps.. OH I forget there more along the lines of saying..." raise our caps ,over our dead body!"

•••••

Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5

join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ

hmm

Thought Blast became what Extreme 50 was, so which cap is right? (Not that I really care, I never check anyway. lol)

THRILLHOU

@verizon.net

Crimecast economics

Let's see.

105 mbit/s extreme service is ( 1024 * 105 ) = 107520 megabits per second / 8 = 13.44 megabytes/second

Meanwhile, 1,073,741,824 bytes (1 GB) x 600 gigabytes (cap) = 644,245,094,400 bytes

And 644,245,094,400 bytes / 1024 / 1024 = 614,400 megabytes

So: 614,400 / 13.44 megabytes per second = 45714.28 seconds / 761.904 minutes / 12.698 hours

Only 12.7 hours of downloading to exhaust your entire monthly limit. Just wow. There is nothing generous about this at all. It's as offensive as before!

Oh, and just in case someone wants to bring up the MiB and GiB issue, it's 13.63 hours in that case.

••••

Atlas720

@comcast.net

caps

Really, if comcast was to go by the FCC definition of broadband these caps need to be 1500 gigabytes per 30 day period.

BottomsUp

@comcast.net

sigh...

I kinda feel bad for the people who don't push for higher limits even if they don't reach them now. I think most of them are likely single, living in a household mostly comprised of a generation that didn't grow up with the Internet, or are a bit short-sighted.

Once you have a family comprised fully of people raised in the "Internet Era" coupled with the rapidly increasing bit-rich media and increasing on demand platforms...you're gonna kinda wish you argued for less restrictions and/or better compromises. You've got the ISPs demonizing the super-minority "bandwidth hogs" to the average user and then they get away with pushing these blanket restrictions and hefty overage fees with people cheering them on.

They're just establishing a billing infrastructure that bodes well for them in the future. But hey, maybe they'll scale their pricing back once a large portion of their consumer base and technology start to catch up....riiiiiight. It probably depends on how competition evolves, so cross your fingers.