Re: New Comcast user
said by ronpin:I was thinking pretty much the same thing:
said by jplove71:They're hoping you do!
if I ever receive one of these letters, I'm dropping them like a hot potato and going with another high speed internet provider.
"What? That All-You-Can-Eat Buffet warned me about eating more than 12 plates of food in a sitting?! I'll show them, and never come back. They're never getting another $3.95 from me!"
[text was edited by author 2003-10-13 11:02:06]
Re: New Comcast user
said by joebear29:I think it would matter when I'm also using Comcast for my phone and TV service as well.
I wasn't arguing the ethics of either side, merely pointing out that leaving wouldn't bug Comcast too much, or else they would not have sent the letter in the first place.
Me - "Hello? Comcast? Yea, um, I want to cancel all of my services that I have with you."
Them - "Why do you want to do that?"
Me - "I received one of your 'high usage' letters and since there is no set limit in the TOS or AUP, I feel that you really don't want my business so I'm going to take it elsewhere."
Them - "Your account shows that you have phone, TV, and internet with us. Are you sure there's nothing we can do to keep you from leaving?"
Me - "There is one thing."
Them - "And what is that?"
Me - "Add this so-called 'download limit' to the TOS and/or AUP so that subscribers to your internet service know what it is."
Them - "I'm sorry, but we aren't going to do that."
Me - "Then disconnect all of my services immediately"
Browsing with Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1
| |ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
Re: Why can't they just go public? Well, if you've got a problem with it, then take your money elsewhere.
We're talking about internet service. I think this place is making a big stink about nothing. How many letters have we seen that have been sent out? A few?
Send them out en masse towards our everyday high users and I'll sing a different tune.
Wanna tell a guy who's got 4 radio streams capturing every single second of every single day to knock it off? Go for it.
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock
Re: Why can't they just go public?
said by Sarick:Apparently there is no set limit, it varies from location to location and node to node.
It's the networks design flaw.
If they have a set limit all they need to do is TELL them that limit..
quote:You can't run a server off the service either. That is a non-publicized (yet in the TOS/AUP) limit as well, yet few are complaining about that.
by them not stating a limit and keeping the caps hidden they are using a bait tactic. how so? Well they are expecting people to buy into a service under the impression that its unlimited while secretly maintaining a limit. When someone pays for the service and decides to use it as it is advertised (broadband internet) they get shafted?
It looks like a slithering snake oil salesman.
They aren't setting a real limit yet saying it's unlimited no matter how you put it its falsely promoting a service as something its not meant to be.
And who is getting shafted? You pay your $40, download 400 gigs, get a letter. Repeat next month. Third month, they shut off your service at the end. You paid for three months unlimited, you got three months unlimited. Where were you "shafted" by being charged for something you did not get?
quote:Again, how is anyone being cheated? For as long as they pay for the service, they get unlimited access.
Cable Co's Are KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY cheating people by selling a service they can't support. It's simple if they can't support the streams then they should state it before any money transactions are made.
Thats what people want!
quote:So, if they want to limit his usage to lets say 100 gigs a month, they should throttle his connection to a 323 kilobits down? i would be angrier at paying $40 bucks for 323 down than I would simply having the service cancelled and not being charged anymore.
Since the provider can't balance the loads then it's their fault for the poor backbone design. Isn't that what stream caps are? If they want to limit his streams then all they need to do is cut back on the connection.
| || show me a place where is says "unlimited data transfer".|
access is access -- it's a key. Cable modem is on all the time, the "door to the internet" is open 24/7.
I've never seen them say "unlimited data transfer", have you?
It's a pointless argument, I think. It's not what I thought you said, it's what you meant to say that's important. The TOS is the legal document. Even if there are no bandwidth "limits", per se, there are still limitations on how much impact you can place on the network resources as an individual subscriber. For instance, you can't uncap your modem, the modem has a cap, why don't we argue that it's false advertising to say unlimited and then put a cap on your modem at 3mbps? Same argument, really...
| |2kmaroThinkPremium,ExMod 1 BC
Head Up and Locked? Comcast needs to look around at what other providers are doing. I have in mind specifically Cox HSI. We went through this same shenanighans - getting letters, not finding anything in writing, vague hints at what the guidelines were, some people downloading 10 Linux distros and such seemingly every day without a warning while others (according to them ) exchanged 2 emails a day and got hit with a similar letter.
In the end, the outcry was actually heard by Cox HSI and they have published the numbers (which, by the way, didn't make some users very happy as it looks pretty restrictive although I've never gotten a letter). At least with Cox, they did come clean and put something in black and white that could be referenced.
But you have to use a little caution when thinking about these bandwidth use caps, and they should be somewhat liberal. Yeah, I know, any customer would say that. But if they actually put out numbers, be sure to find out if they considered the following uncontrollables in the equation:
traffic generated by viruses attempting to connect to your system,
traffic generated by the tons of spam email, much with heavy html and graphic content (especially the xxx ones)
extra traffic generated when the system is beset with packet loss and you have to double or triple the amount of data transmitted to get your download accomplished or request a web page.
Lots of things for them to consider. But it cannot hurt them much more to publish some numbers than to continue hiding the numbers from their users and keeping their own heads stuck in the sand.
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Supreme Court Justice Brandeis (Olmstead vs US, 1928)
It's not a cap It's not a cap. No one at Comcast knows anything about a cap.
Even when @home was in charge, there was a clause in the TOS about not using so much bandwidth that it has the potential to affect the operation of the network.
This does not mean that anyone in your neighborhood is complaining, it does not mean that your node is overloaded. It just means that the rate at which you are using the bandwidth has a theoretical potential to affect the network.
On the other hand, it may very well be that the excessive usage is affecting the other people on the network. Whether or not that is happening is not as important as the fact that the bandwidth consumption is at a level where that could start happening, especially if more than one person were using the service in that way.
It's not a certain cap, it's how much you use the network, and is that too much. The people here in these forums seem to be giving Comcast two choices.
1. Don't send out any more letters
2. Set a cap for everyone
However, there are many of us who would prefer to not have caps. Don't you realize that if they set caps it's going to be something like 30 gigs per month? So it's not really about caps, what people REALLY want is for Comcast to stop sending the letters. A cap, so you can download right up to it, is merely a consolation prize.
So the unofficial rumor is 150 gigs per month. Try it. Download less than 150 gigs a month and see if you get a letter. You probably won't. But if you keep downloading 149.999999 gigs per month (which is what a lot of people want to do with the limit) - then you may have someone contact you about the network load you are creating.
Also, the letters don't coincide with the TOS. The letters make it sound like a bandwidth cap, but the angle the enforcement appears to be coming from is about "causing an excessive burden on the network", or something like that. Not surprising for a large company like Comcast. They probably should have written the letters in a way to reflect that there is not a cap, but that people are using too much network resources. But hey, you know, there is this fad in the US where everyone tries to scare the **** out of each other in the interest of self-betterment.
So just keep it under 100 gigs/month and you will probably be fine. And watch the upload. If you find yourself constantly uploading because of the low upload cap, that seems to have been a problem for some people as well. If you are away from your computer, and you are uploading some immense files to somewhere and it takes hours and hours to upload these files, and you do this all the time, you may be impacting the network in a negative way. There is a reason the upstream cap is so low - there is less shared upload than there is download.
In any case, even if you have gotten a letter.... remember... you are way better off not having a cap. Even if you received a letter, you can probably still get away with 75 of 80 gigs per month; if you insist on caps it will be 30 gigs per month or even less. Up to you. I guess some people want to have limits placed on everyone, so that they don't have to feel like a sore thumb. Hey... EVERYONE is going to be better off without the limits, including those who have been notified. I don't understand why people want to limit themselves like that!
Now... if people who download 40 gigs per month start getting letters - then we have a problem. That has not happened, and it does not look like it will. I can say with a significant amount of certainty from what I have seen on these forums and on the Comcast forum and on Usenet, that every one of the people who has received a letter has used over 100 gigabytes per month, and the many of these people are over 200 gigabytes per month.
So it's not a problem. Seriously. It's not a problem. Keep this up and we will have caps... 30 gigs a month. No cable company in their right minds is going to set a three digit cap, but this is where the cap is effectively right now. Not happy with a triple-digit cap? Keep complaining, and you will get a 30 gig per month cap.
But I guess it's fun to complain, isn't it? Even if the complaining has the effect of moving the entire Comcast HSI subscriber base backwards in time as far as technology is concerned.
Remember, any official cap is going to be like 30 gigs a month. Remember that, and stop asking for one. Please, people. We don't want any caps. Hey Comcast... here's one vote for no caps.
My experience with Comcast Greetings! I'm new to this forum and just read this thread. I got the August letter form Comcast. Upon calling the number listed there for recipients of the letter, I was also told that the letter explicitly that the letter was sent to people who had used 150 GB cumulatively in July. I daresay I am guilty; I do a lot of usenet downloading of binaries (I purchase unlimited service from usenetserver.com). Note however that the letter was dated Aug. 16. Suppose I wanted to conform to the unwritten guidelines, and suppose I cut my downloading in half upon receipt (around Aug. 19). We were almost 3 weeks into August at that point. In my case, I had my service suspended in mid-September for the predictable reason that I again exceeded the unwritten limit in August. The timing of this, in addition to the lack of information, made it essentially impossible to comply.
In my case, I have multiple computers in the house, use them simultaneously for personal and small business purposes, and so I upgraded to small business Comcast Workplace class ($155/month in my area, Indianapolis). I got strong assurances from the business sales people that this level of service is not presently subject to any caps (although the possibility is mentioned in the TOS document, which is however NOT posted on line, though you can get it faxed to you upon request -- it's over 10 printed pages long). Additionally, I am permitted 25 workstations connected to this service; it seems to me that we could easily go over this limit if there really were 25, without any dubious use at all. I do NOT run a server, I do not use P2P, either as sharer or downloader. I do a lot of streaming video and a lot of downloading from usenet, in the background, while working.
Finally, HOW does one monitor one's cumulative bandwidth? Suppose Comcast said that 100 GB/month is okay. How would I know?? Note that I am a Mac OS X user, and the 5 computers in the house are all Macs, so Windows software won't help me. Really, monitoring of cumulative bandwidth ought to be provided by Comcast; there ought to be a web page you could connect to and get your statistics. They obviously have this information (how else could they identify the heavy users), so they should make it public in addition to publicizing some sort of soft limit.
gfowler AT indiana DOT edu
Caps = Gone to DSL
I'd also like to state that if I ever receive a bandwidth abuse letter from Comcast, I am GONE. That day. Earthlink DSL will be my new broadband provider.
The caps on our cable modem are already in place with our 1.5 mbit download speed CAP.
Need I remind everyone that most, if not all of us that are cable modem users had speeds in excess of 3 mbit originally. I did with TCI, then AT&T bought TCI and installed the 1.5 mbit downstream caps. I was pissed, sure, but really, it turned out to be ok, because let's face it 1.5 mbit is pretty darn fast.
So they've already taken away service from us, AND raised the rate three times now! Hello?! With TCI I was paying $39 / month for 3mbit downstream speeds. Now I'm paying $54 / month with Comcast with a lowered downstream speed, AND they're now threatening to initiate byte caps!
Anyone see something wrong here?
I do. It's called getting ripped of. So go ahead Comcast, put your byte caps into place, and you lose this customer in a heartbeat.
I'm not the only one you'll lose.
Re: As I've Been Saying All Along I gotta give it to the att guy. Its all capitalistic tactics.
Looks like economic's class payed off for att
Its all simple formula's.
There's a need for this type of service, they have a substantial grasp of the market, they can control how the market moves, at least in regards to their consumer base.
Everyone's happy when they hear "were pushing it to 3mpbs" then they forget, there's always a but, in this case the but will be "if we think your abusing what we would consider abusing our service, we can warn you, then shut your service off."
Hook...Line...and sinker. Checkmate.
Personally, i'm just waiting for ftth h or something better/ more reliable then comcast to come in. Getting sick of paying the 60 bucks a month for viewing a few flash pages on newgrounds, and gaming on jedi knight 3. In our current economy, its just not worth 60 when you can get it somewhere else for a cheaper price. Of course i won't move to sbc due to their 12 month contract garbage. Just another way to lock their consumer base.
| |pleekmoTriptoe Through The TulipsPremium
Panem et Circenses [Said by editor:]"But are faster speeds, used primarily to download ever-larger files, really important if you'll wind up hitting an invisible data cap?"
Gee, isn't this what I've been ranting about lately? I see that someone has finally figured it out.
Only in America if it takes too long for a killer to die, you can't execute him that way and if it took less than 30 seconds for the victim to die then you can't use capital punishment against the killer. What a country...