how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2007-01-12 13:52:29: Ed Foster discovers that yes, Comcast does have download caps in place, something we've been discussing for years now. ..
|
  JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority ...can cause disruption serious enough to warrant termination? | |
| | | | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority it's not flaky, it's one of the best broadband providers out there.
Just the way networks work. Sure you can segment every 10 people but then you'll take 500 hops just to go one state over and since it's got to go through 500 routers, it'll be just as slow and probably more expensive because of all the expense. BUT, you won't have that guy down the street hogging up your bandwidth. | |
| | |  ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority said by clickwir:it's not flaky, it's one of the best broadband providers out there. Not according to DSLR reviews they aren't. Biggest doesn't equal best. | |
| | | | | | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority Keep in mind, most users on BBR here are advance users that expect more out of their connection.
Comcast targets the average user.
So the review here is skewed. When you look at what the service is targeted for, then yes it should likely be ranked better than what it is on BBR.
--
LanCity forever! | |
| | | | | chef4231Chef423
join:2000-09-02
Springfield, IL | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority Advanced users? meaning what? you steal more games and movies than people who DONT? Doesnt cost bandwidth to tinker around the internet and become an "advanced used", menaing knowledge. NOT STEALING. Freak. | |
| | | | | |  thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
3 edits | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority said by chef4231:Advanced users? meaning what? you steal more games and movies than people who DONT? Doesnt cost bandwidth to tinker around the internet and become an "advanced used", menaing knowledge. NOT STEALING. Freak. That made my day.. I haven't laughed this hard since ftzsee  was trippin' on pink pills and seeing orange balls and loafs in IRC.
There are legitimate uses for bandwidth, genius. If people like you were around and in power ten years ago, there'd be no broadband today. People like you prevent technological progress.
edit: I just noticed you use Adelphia "HS" internet. It's funny how the trend goes, the only ones who share that ass-backward view on residential internet are those with equally poor ISPs.
edit 2: FREAK!
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
| | | | MordhemLove it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD | I get 12mb out of my comcast pipe, I am a advanced user and I love my comcast. Thing is some have problems and some don't here in Baltimore City The service has always been great I also never had really any outings and I only had a problem for a short time with a bad node in my area but all that did is drop my speed from my normal 8+ to 4mb per sec but after they fixed it I see speeds up to 12mb. | |
| | | | | | | said by MrChupacabra:Keep in mind, most users on BBR here are advance users that expect more out of their connection. Comcast targets the average user. So the review here is skewed. When you look at what the service is targeted for, then yes it should likely be ranked better than what it is on BBR. That doesn't make any sense.
You could use the same argument for every ISP rating on BBR. | |
|
| DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | It's not a case of the network being flaky. The portion of the network between the node and the user is a shared resource. In other words, the bandwidth used by any user directly reduces the bandwidth available to the other users on the node. When planning the distribution of nodes any cable company will determine the number of users per node so that everyone can expect to see acceptable performance with typical usage. One bandwidth hog can really hurt the performance for other users. Of course, you could argue that the cure is to have less users per node, or conversely, more nodes. But this costs money and should you really expect normal users to subsidize bandwidth hogs. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Bright House
| Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority said by DMS1:It's not a case of the network being flaky. The portion of the network between the node and the user is a shared resource. In other words, the bandwidth used by any user directly reduces the bandwidth available to the other users on the node. When planning the distribution of nodes any cable company will determine the number of users per node so that everyone can expect to see acceptable performance with typical usage. One bandwidth hog can really hurt the performance for other users. Of course, you could argue that the cure is to have less users per node, or conversely, more nodes. But this costs money and should you really expect normal users to subsidize bandwidth hogs. Bandwidth hog or not, you have to be pretty consistently downloading and uploading the majority of the 24 hour day, for almost the entire 30 days of the month. I have 2 routers, 3 VoIP lines, and a roommate thats addicted to AOL, streaming music online, and downloading torrents, and have had service for 5 years without no quarrels, no letters, no threats. My node has 289 people using it in JUST MY NODE, my speeds are consistently close, if not dead on, advertised speeds, and latency is fine. The point is, as much as I download, I would be warned by now if it was a rediculous number. Maybe these "light" users have a trojan, or a bad NIC throwing out packets that are being counted as "traffic". Either way, it's not the ISP's job to do ANYTHING except keep reliability and service up to standards...
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | | | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority No, that would only apply if they had a single limit. What has been reported from time to time is that they don't have a single limit that applies system wide. Instead each system has their own limit based on what they are seeing locally.
This makes a kind of sense. If the users in an area tend to be heavy downloaders, as a whole, then it makes sense to subdivide the network so that all of the users get the kind of speeds they expect. The alternative is to turn away a large number of users in that area. If a single user in an area is using up a large portion of the available bandwidth then that user may be impacting the other users in that area so I can see why they would come down on that user.
In any case each system should have an idea what limit will cause a user to show up on their bandwidth alarms. I know they don't want to give a user a hard number but they should be able to say something like stay under 100GB/month bandwidth usage and you will be safe, but they won't even say that. | |
| | | | | | said by phattieg:said by DMS1:It's not a case of the network being flaky. The portion of the network between the node and the user is a shared resource. In other words, the bandwidth used by any user directly reduces the bandwidth available to the other users on the node. When planning the distribution of nodes any cable company will determine the number of users per node so that everyone can expect to see acceptable performance with typical usage. One bandwidth hog can really hurt the performance for other users. Of course, you could argue that the cure is to have less users per node, or conversely, more nodes. But this costs money and should you really expect normal users to subsidize bandwidth hogs. Bandwidth hog or not, you have to be pretty consistently downloading and uploading the majority of the 24 hour day, for almost the entire 30 days of the month. I have 2 routers, 3 VoIP lines, and a roommate thats addicted to AOL, streaming music online, and downloading torrents, and have had service for 5 years without no quarrels, no letters, no threats. My node has 289 people using it in JUST MY NODE, my speeds are consistently close, if not dead on, advertised speeds, and latency is fine. The point is, as much as I download, I would be warned by now if it was a rediculous number. Maybe these "light" users have a trojan, or a bad NIC throwing out packets that are being counted as "traffic". Either way, it's not the ISP's job to do ANYTHING except keep reliability and service up to standards... If you used an 8 meg Comcast connection full bore for 1 1/2 hours a day, you'ld hit over 300 gig in a month.
That is hardly using anywhere near the connection Comcast has sold you.
What the hell good is a fast connestion if you can't use it? Comcast has a crappy network and they can't deliver what they are selling. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Bright House
| said by JTRockville:...can cause disruption serious enough to warrant termination? Last comment, this is not newsworthy. For the last 2 years, people have grunted and groaned when they heard "so and so" got canned from Comcast when they went over their "invisible cap". Factually, no cap has been announced, and the guy openly admitted to downloading a few DVD's (his wife), which can be upto 5 gigs each. Depending on how they were downloaded, it could have took 3 or 4 days to download, while other stuff was being used on the net during this time. Since this story was nothing more than "another complaint about the same issue", and since the forums aren't flooded with folks who were kicked off for the same reason, then please tell me how this story is any more informative, or any different, from what we have already heard from the very very few users on here who were "canned" for the same thing. Please, I invite you to explain why we keep beating a dead horse. At least he was notified, and smart enough to know all that was being done on his computer (or most of it at least). As long as you're not in his shoes, with a wife who downloads all these things, then who cares. Tell me a story where someone has proven after a warning that the bandwidth coming thru the ethernet cable to their modem had less than average usage, and the person got suspended anyway. That I would love to see. Or about a court appearance where someone sues with this info in hand. Why, you might ask? Simply because when they come in with their proof, Comcast will have their logs too, and we'll finally see who wins. Until then, who cares if "Joe Schmoe in Utah lost his internet for over usage". If 30 people in the same state, within 10 miles of each other loses it for this reason, I want to know. But who cares about this one guy??? I know I don't, I just clicked the article to see if anything new was mentioned, but of course, just another whiner...
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority Whiner? They could at least tell him what the cap is. If they just had a numeric cap, and told people what it is, no problem. But it's not fair to tell him he is downloading too much, without telling him how much is too much. | |
| | | | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority said by massysett:Whiner? They could at least tell him what the cap is. If they just had a numeric cap, and told people what it is, no problem. But it's not fair to tell him he is downloading too much, without telling him how much is too much. They probably don't actually know what a realistic cap is themselves in each case. If other users on the node have reported poor performance and it turns out that one user is way ahead of everyone else in terms of bandwidth usage then it's a fair bet that they are the cause of the problems. However, it would not necessarily be immediately obvious what reduction would be needed to keep everyone happy. This is why if Comcast ever did publish hard caps they would almost certainly set them very conservatively. | |
|
| | quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | They beat a dead horse because it kicks up controversy. That's why half the articles are about pirating, copyright infringement, and such. You might say broadbandreports.com itself is a "troll" (which is a stupid term that people need to shut up with). | |
|
| | | thats pretty lame even from the likes of you. | |
| | | | said by JTRockville:...can cause disruption serious enough to warrant termination? When will you stop bitching about Comcast? We ALL know you hate them so why not go away. Sheesh, talk about beating a dead horse!
Yeah I know, I'll be slapped by a mod for blatant flaming, but this crap gets old post after post after post. Hate Comcast? LEAVE!
--
I'm not really sure what I am doing, but I'm doing it anyway! | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority said by TraumaJunkie:said by JTRockville:...can cause disruption serious enough to warrant termination? When will you stop bitching about Comcast? We ALL know you hate them so why not go away. Sheesh, talk about beating a dead horse! Yeah I know, I'll be slapped by a mod for blatant flaming, but this crap gets old post after post after post. Hate Comcast? LEAVE! Excellent post...
To be honest.. those that come here and do everything they can to jump on what they hate, in a sense, is doing nothing but trolling, in the definition of what the well informed and educated BBR users define it.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | |  KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority Phooey, absolutely not-excellent post. Any comment that throws in the most ridiculous, "Don't like it, leave!" comment immediately begs dismissal.
As has been noted innumerably in these pages, many folks do not have a broadband choice; it's one company or nothing. So these folks should just leave the broadband world behind? They are not allowed to criticize their provider?
I would somewhat agree with the comment that folks who come here only to complain are close to trolls. JT does not fit that profile, however, as I've seen countless posts of hers on other subjects and topics which are not simply bashing Comcast.
Hey, at the risk of dismissing my own post, if you don't like the bashing you see here, why don't you just LEAVE?!
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority Why don't you?
The thing with my post stands true. Many people come here and simply add their "it's comcraptic" comment on anything cable. You need to understand and pay attention to the crux of these comments we're making.
Second, I don't dismiss your post. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't dismiss it. It is thought out, it explains your side, and it has purpose. Again, I don't necessarily agree with it entirely, but at least it has substance.
JT, for example, generally finds a cable or comcast news story and feels the need to simply add a bashing comment.. and it usually doesn't always have to do with the topic. There are a few others here who I don't need to name.
I don't have a problem with the "bashing"... and don't need to leave. What I DO have a problem is those that come here just to vent about a company or industry they don't like. To that.. we say, "we get it,.... so what else?" Also, what are these "bitchers" doing to make it better?
As for choice - people most certainly DO have a choice. I will tell you the same thing a superior court judge told me one time when I brought a complaint before her. In a VERY similar situation as we are talking about, I told her "I have no choice, your honor..." She pulled off her glasses, looked me straight in the eye and said "Young man, you DO have a choice.. you don't have to remain living where you are. You have the choice to move." To my mind.. "move?" Yes... there is nothing in the law that states that you have a right to broadband, or television other than OTA that you are satisfied with.
As for having a choice.. I feel no pitty for people who say they have no "choice"... why? Over the last several years before I purchased a home, and even then, when I located in to an area, broadband availability and providers (both cable and phone) WERE important to me and I make my choice as to where to live in the area with that in mind. At the time, some areas had DSL, some had one-way cable, while others had two-way cable. I chose an area that could get 256/256 Qwest DSL. Cable, at the time, was one way. Prior to that, DSL wasn't available in my neighborhood.. I wanted it bad enough, I moved.
Yes, we DO have choices. We sometimes don't like what choices we have and they may not be the easiest choice. Some people say they live in apartments so they can't get Satellite. (unless they don't have the proper facing balcony - which they could have preplanned often) why did they choose an apartment? for ease? Why not a house? Houses often give the renter more choice. Sometimes you can't have it all.
Sure, now all of you that want to bash my views - feel free. They are my views and views shared by others. Maybe because all my life my father instilled into me that you have to work for what you want, and sometimes you have to make choices you may not like.
In this case, it's internet access... not open heart surgery.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | | | | KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority The leave comment was a joke, of course, by the smiley and the earlier comments on it.
I agree that complaining posts have little to add, but everyone has as much right to complain as they do to praise.
And, sure, folks can move but that's often not really a choice either. The costs involved with moving, and certainly the dramatic rise in housing prices themselves, make it prohibitive. If we hadn't bought this house when we did, we'd probably be living in an apartment considering today's housing prices. No way we could afford to move these days.
Fortunately, like you, I kept broadband availability very much in mind when buying this house. I can't fault folks who weren't as forward-looking, or bought their house before broadband was even available, for not factoring that in.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential | |
|
| | | Not flaky at all if you consider oversubscriber trunks as the normal business model. 
How can Comcrap expect to compete with Fios 50 Mbps offerings when they can't compete on a normal front?
TraumaJunkie, I like to think that people only bitch when there is something to bitch about. Within the first two-weeks of Comcrap taking over my cable provider they increased my bill by 34% without increasing the service. They did increase the telemarketing, though. I find both actions worth bitching about, and that doesn't even begin to address this thread's bitch-worthy issue. | |
| | | | Comcast HSI*
*For Residential Use Only. Massive downloads of porn, bit torrents, etc. and massive uploads of illegal file-sharing might just get your account cancelled. If you need to download 600 gigs a month, BUY A BUSINESS PLAN, YOU CHEAP, PORN0, ILLEGAL FILE SHARING GEEK! | |
| | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: How flaky is Comcast's network if an insignificant minority Unfortunately, I don't think you can escape termination even if you subscribe to what Comcast calls a "business" plan. As far as I can tell, Comcast's "business" plan uses the same network, and "business" subscribers are subject to the same invisible caps as broadband-for-entertainment-purposes-only subscribers.
BTW - Comcast is much more entertaining when you're not a subscriber. | |
|
| | 300gb It's been pretty well documented that they only seem to have a problem if you go over about 300gb/month.
That's a ton of crap. You don't need to be transferring that much data.
It's bad enough they won't give us more speed, but then we have some people ruining it for the rest of us hoggin up what little bandwidth we do get.
I've had some first hand experience with this. Called Adelphia (now comcast) and complained about speeds. Less than a week later I was flying. Called them back for something else and also asked what the fix was, they clearly said "there were a couple high traffic users in your area, they have been taken care of". Truth or lie? I don't know, but I do know that one person on a network can bring the whole network down to a crawl. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
·Comcast
| Re: 300gb said by clickwir:That's a ton of crap. You don't need to be transferring that much data. And you're the bandwidth police?
I don't use Comcast, but if I'm paying for an unlimited connection I expect it to be unlimited, whether I used 1 GB or 500 GBs. They need to publish said caps and not advertise it as unlimited.
--
»www.wwiivehicles.com
World War II Vehicles and Advanced Squad Leader | |
| | |  Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: 300gb said by csiemers:said by clickwir:That's a ton of crap. You don't need to be transferring that much data. And you're the bandwidth police? I don't use Comcast, but if I'm paying for an unlimited connection I expect it to be unlimited, whether I used 1 GB or 500 GBs. They need to publish said caps and not advertise it as unlimited. Comcast could get around all this by dropping the "unlimited" slogan and not publishing the caps. Which, in my opinion, they'll never publish because then everyone would know just how much they CAN download before termination of service. And at that point it's goodbye bandwidth.
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. | |
| | | | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | Re: 300gb As far as I know, Comcast haven't used the term "unlimited" for a long time, and when they did it was used to refer to unlimited connection time rather than unlimited bandwidth. | |
| | | | | | | Re: 300gb Sheesh, don't tell me you are one of those people stupid enough to fall for the 'unlimited' connection times. If I am allowed to connect 7x24, then, by definition, I can DOWNLOAD 7x24. Thus Unlimited Connection Time = Unlimited Downloads. You can't seperate the two, otherwise it would be LIMITED.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: 300gb Not at all true--unlimited connection time does not mean unlimited bandwidth usage.
It may be valuable for a customer to remain connected, while using very little bandwidth, to merely check for new e-mail, monitor remote sensors, or ping some other application periodically.
It's like saying a business is "open." That alone doesn't mean they are necessarily prepared for (or required to) handle all possible surges in business.
I fully agree that limits, to the extent they exist, should be published and a clear part of the T&C. But that doesn't mean that "connection time" and "bandwidth usage" should be inextricably treated the same.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by karlmarx:Sheesh, don't tell me you are one of those people stupid enough to fall for the 'unlimited' connection times. If I am allowed to connect 7x24, then, by definition, I can DOWNLOAD 7x24. Thus Unlimited Connection Time = Unlimited Downloads. You can't seperate the two, otherwise it would be LIMITED. You can separate the two. Unlimited access means that you pay a flat fee for a 24/7 connection instead of a flat fee for a limited TIME, and metered time over the limit.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Ever purchased and paid for a T1 line before?
Ever pay for a loop charge and then bandwidth charge?
Remember the times of paying to dial up to the internet by the minute? Transfer or not, you paid to be connected.
Now, think about those two examples for a moment and think about unlimited connections and unlimited transfer.
The two have been separated for a long time.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | |  jwardl
join:2000-08-12
Spring, TX | You really think people are going to make it a point to download as much as they CAN? Geez -- you must have a pretty negative view of humanity.
I'd bet you that 98% of the people out there would continue downloading as they do, but would simply keep an eye on their totals. Those that are "download hogs" would know when they had to quit, instead of just sucking the line dry. To the contrary, I believe it would IMPROVE bandwidth. | |
| | | | | Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: 300gb said by jwardl:You really think people are going to make it a point to download as much as they CAN? Geez -- you must have a pretty negative view of humanity. I'd bet you that 98% of the people out there would continue downloading as they do, but would simply keep an eye on their totals. Those that are "download hogs" would know when they had to quit, instead of just sucking the line dry. To the contrary, I believe it would IMPROVE bandwidth. No, I'm saying that the bandwidth hogs, if given a magic number (say 300gb), would then keep right on downloading up to that amount if Comcast were to advertise it. My point is that by advertising a high cap, Comcast would invite hogs; enforce a lower cap and they face criticism. Comcast is between a rock and hard place allocating bandwidth on a shared system as it is, so they imply unlimited and get around the problem by being vague - at best - on the subject of caps.
You really want humanity? read the newspaper or watch the news 
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. | |
|
| | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Titus Pullo:Comcast could get around all this by dropping the "unlimited" slogan... I have not seen Comcast advertising "unlimited" anything. I have only seen one person contest this; but they posted a Comcast ad that was over three years old, and only mentioned "unlimited access", not "unlimited bandwidth".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: 300gb said by NormanS:said by Titus Pullo:Comcast could get around all this by dropping the "unlimited" slogan... I have not seen Comcast advertising "unlimited" anything. I have only seen one person contest this; but they posted a Comcast ad that was over three years old, and only mentioned "unlimited access", not "unlimited bandwidth". You're right: they say nothing and hope everyone abides by unspoken rules until they don't and they're cut off. It's easier, and less painful from a PR perspective, to not publicly address the subject of caps while enforcing them surreptitiously.
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. | |
|
| | | | Well there's your problem, you are treating their service as an "unlimited" one and they don't advertise that. They might have years ago, but they got wise to that quick and no one says it's "unlimited" anymore.
What's your next excuse for using hordes of bandwidth? | |
| | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by csiemers:I don't use Comcast, but if I'm paying for an unlimited connection I expect it to be unlimited, whether I used 1 GB or 500 GBs. They need to publish said caps and not advertise it as unlimited. No ISP offers "unlimited bandwidth". The only time I have seen "unlimited" used in advertising, it was for "unlimited access"; as opposed to metered access, where you pay a flat fee for "X" hours of connect time, but when you've used up your time, your connection is metered. I had an ISP that metered the overtime at $2 per hour.
Comcast is selling speed, not bandwidth.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 300gb For an entertainment medium speed is great cause you get the content ASAP. bandwidth is important to a point but primarily a concern for a business.
--
LanCity forever! | |
| | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 | A Comcast subscriber can start watching his video about five times sooner than I can. | |
|
|  CPUYODA
join:2003-01-25
Johnson City, TN
·Comcast
| Funny,...Ive had DSL for years.....sure it's a few bucks more.....but noone has ever or will ever call me and threaten me with a disconnect.
Anyone on cable,who has access to DSL,and complains about this,....is a moron.
If I was that guy,I'd left the second he said disconnect. | |
| | | | | Re: 300gb I have DSL, too. But the reason I got it and dumped Verizon was because it was CHEAPER. | |
| | | | | | Re: 300gb Sorry, I meand dump COMCAST. I now USE Verizon. | |
|
|  Ark
join:2002-06-08
Ada, MI
·Comcast
| If it's 300GB/month, then they just need to advertise that the speeds are really only about 950Kbit/s, not 6 or 10Mbit/s. That or explain to the public about burstable bandwidth and transfer caps clearly in their advertising. Anything less basically looks like false advertising to me. | |
| | |
See 14 replies to this post | |
| ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | In looking at the CC forum people have gotten nastygrams for far less than 300GB, some got them for 60GB (so they claim). »/faq/8865 | |
| | |
See 22 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | Re: 300gb Oh, maybe you missed the part that it's comcast limiting you, not me.
I'm just saying, IMO, 300gb is a lot of data. Justify to me what you are transferring that that is so big. I dare you. Lets see what is taking up so much bandwidth that you are so defensive over. | |
| | | | | | Re: 300gb Digital movies of family and friends from several people.
Downloaded legitimate movies from MovieFlix and Cinema now.
iChat and iPhoto which can easily use 2gb / day (don't call BS, at Rutgers University people have been disconnected for violating the 2gb / 7 day cap just from a day of leaving iChat and iPhoto open).
Legitimate downloads of programs via torrents (lets say Linux ISOs or movies now since tehy're entering that territory).
Game demo downloads.
Beta testing.
Playing online games (again at Rutgers, people disconnected for 2gb downstream in a day from using Xbox live, since we have 4 Xbox's and we play constantly this is not an unrealistic occurence).
And that's only considering the legitimate uses. If we go into illegitimate things then we increase the data usage almost infinetly.
My point is simple: Either announce your caps or stop claiming unlimited usage. Unlimited means NO cap. Without limitations. Period. It's very simple.
--
Don't Let Them Take Your Rights! | |
| | | | | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: 300gb said by MASantangelo:My point is simple: Either announce your caps or stop claiming unlimited usage. Unlimited means NO cap. Without limitations. Period. It's very simple. Provide recent link with Comcast advertising "unlimited service". Good luck.
--
www.seabee.org | |
|
| | | said by clickwir:I've had some first hand experience with this. Called Adelphia (now comcast) and complained about speeds. Less than a week later I was flying. Called them back for something else and also asked what the fix was, they clearly said "there were a couple high traffic users in your area, they have been taken care of". Truth or lie? I don't know, but I do know that one person on a network can bring the whole network down to a crawl. I have issues with this statement. One person (downloading stuff) *cannot* bring down a consumer based broadband network. However, I would stipulate to a hacker or some other nefarious action going that does eat up continuous amounts of traffic. But just downloading? You get capped at what 6Megabits. That person can't eat up anymore than what they are rated for. And cable is not symmetrical so no, one person can't bring down the network by using torrents. Now a group of people? Sure a group of people can eat up the bandwidth that is set for maybe 200 people. But that is due to poor network infrastructure. Meaning they put too many damn people on a node. You can't throw 200-400 people on a node and tell them they *all* have 6Megabit connections and then turn around and tell them they're screwed because *all* 200-400 are actually capping themselves out at the 6Megabit connection. There *has* to be headroom alloted for these connections. So yes, there will be bandwidth that isn't actually "sold" persay by the company but it is absolutely needed. Will they add that headroom? Hell no. They make more money by overselling their nodes.
This can happen on DSL too, just not as badly. You can oversell connections coming into a particular DSLAM which is where the bottleneck occurs for DSL. And we have *no* control over that. I don't really want regulation in this area because regulation brings other things we don't need on the net. What I do think should happen is that you people who complain (including myself) need to shop around if you don't like the ToS, bandwidth, service, etc, etc. Provide them with competition. We won't get competition unless we actually take our money away from these companies. And that means switching to other services completely. Have cable broadband? Switch your internet AND TV services. Personally I find Satellite superior anyways.
Just my few thoughts. Btw...comcast *can* and *will* block your connection if you have a pc laden heavily with spyware/malware and its consistently sending out massive amounts of 'stuff'. A friend of mine had this happen to his family while he was off at college. Of course he came back home and fixed and everything was fine again. He did, however, have to make several calls to comcast (then Adelphia). | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i have no clue at all how much data i move a month, but other then patching WoW and EVE im not a big data mover.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by clickwir:... Called Adelphia (now comcast) and complained about speeds. Less than a week later I was flying. Called them back for something else and also asked what the fix was, they clearly said "there were a couple high traffic users in your area, they have been taken care of". Truth or lie? I don't know, but I do know that one person on a network can bring the whole network down to a crawl. One wonders if Comcast only polices caps where there is a bottleneck affecting other users. If so, this might explain (but not excuse) their failure to publish hard and fast rules. Otherwise, maybe they don't worry about it so much.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | |  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
2 edits | Re: 300gb said by calvoiper:One wonders if Comcast only polices caps where there is a bottleneck affecting other users. If so, this might explain (but not excuse) their failure to publish hard and fast rules. Otherwise, maybe they don't worry about it so much. calvoiper We could call it the new PowerCap! | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You got it!
If nodes are running smooth and all is well, no one will receive letters.. even those that are using high amounts of data.
When people in an area are affected, and a user is downloading more than what is considered "average" for the area, then they receive a letter.
Often these letters are for extreme amounts of transfer. Again, those that get the letters know why they are getting them.
The moment you put a limit on transfer per month, MANY people will start seeing overage bills.
So, would you rather cut off those few that are abusing the system and know it? Or would you rather be subject to caps and overage fees?
Set caps and BBR will have content to chew on for years to come. We then become like Australia in a hurry.
In case anyone would like to know what caps do to prices of the internet they use each month, I invite them to see how the entire country of Australia sells internet.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: 300gb This does make some sense.
Likewise, Denny's Restaurants probably don't have a fixed time that patrons are allowed to occupy a table. If one Denny's is slow, you can probably linger over coffee for 3 or 4 hours. On the other hand, if a different (or even the same) Denny's is slammed, you may be asked to "move on" after some period. Clamoring for specifics about exactly how long someone can occupy a table is at best a distraction--it's a fluid standard, based on how "crowded" the facility is, and that varies from facility to facility.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | "That's a ton of crap. You don't need to be transferring that much data."
Don't tell me what I need or don't need to do.
300GB isn't all that much. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 300gb said by pabster:"That's a ton of crap. You don't need to be transferring that much data." Don't tell me what I need or don't need to do. 300GB isn't all that much. And since you are in Waterloo Iowa, you don't have to worry about what Comcast does, now do you??
I suppose your beef would be with MediaCom, right?
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | said by clickwir:It's been pretty well documented that they only seem to have a problem if you go over about 300gb/month. That's a ton of crap. You don't need to be transferring that much data. It's bad enough they won't give us more speed, but then we have some people ruining it for the rest of us hoggin up what little bandwidth we do get. I've had some first hand experience with this. Called Adelphia (now comcast) and complained about speeds. Less than a week later I was flying. Called them back for something else and also asked what the fix was, they clearly said "there were a couple high traffic users in your area, they have been taken care of". Truth or lie? I don't know, but I do know that one person on a network can bring the whole network down to a crawl. I have never once in my life called Verizon to complain about slow speeds, on FIOS or DSL.
I haven't heard of them capping anyone either. They were overloaded once in the beginning of 2006(or 2005) when they released the cheapo 768/128 package.. it was fixed in a WEEK! Comcast hasn't fixed this in years.
Who are you to say how much data someone should transfer? 24 bit 96 KHz audio is becoming a standard for archiving sessions at studios, HD video is about 8-18 mbps in compressed mpeg2. The internet is getting bigger, it's not the consumer's fault comcast can't catch up.
The last thing they should focus on is more speed if they can't even get stuff right at this speed. It's easy to blame your neighbor for overusing his connection if yours slows down, but on a good ISP like SBC or verizon, it won't slow down if your neighbor uses it to an extent you call too much.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
| | | | said by clickwir:That's a ton of crap. You don't need to be transferring that much data. Who are you to judge how much data I need and not need to be downloading? Are you now the moral, legal, and ethical majority? I don't think so.
So, let's say I want to download, legally, a movie in HD. Now let's say I want to do this every night of the week. That would be about 20GB/night or 600GB/month.
So, what you are saying is that if someone offers for me to stream HD content across the Internet to my computer for viewing once the download is complete that this should be illegal if attempted as often as I like?
Two things:
I pay for a pipe that is X Mbps.
I pay for best-effort on this consumer service.
Neither of those concepts are met by suspending or terminating my account. Suspension/termination is NO EFFORT.
It illegally breaks the contract at the whim of the provider. This is reinforced when the provider deliberately takes a stance to NOT PUBLISH said limits. Its like giving me a speeding ticket for speeding on a highway with no posted speed limit anywhere. How do you justify that? We are f-ing mindreader.
BTW, I also have Adelphia, who in the pre-Comcrap days didn't mind my activity. | |
| | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: 300gb said by GhostDoggy:...Its like giving me a speeding ticket for speeding on a highway with no posted speed limit anywhere. How do you justify that? Actually, it's like some of the big western states used to be on speed limits before the energy crisis brought us the 55 MPH nationwide limit--their speed limits were "reasonable and proper", which varied depending on many factors. Sometimes you could drive 85 MPH with impunity, and sometimes 50 was too fast.
Such flexible standards allow more intense usage at times, but not all the time. But I still agree that advertising "unlimited" when it really isn't shouldn't happen.
Maybe Comcast should look at how American Express handles it's credit limits--you don't get a fixed limit, but they clearly reserve the right to limit your charging depending on flexible factors.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: 300gb said by calvoiper:Maybe Comcast should look at how American Express handles it's credit limits--you don't get a fixed limit, but they clearly reserve the right to limit your charging depending on flexible factors. That would be the right thing to do. AMEX clearly states that in their advertising, right up front. Nowhere in Comcast's advertising does it say that customers are subject to such limits. It only appears in an obtuse section of their terms of service and acceptable use policy.
What Comcast does is the equivalent of AMEX cutting off your credit and then taking back the card for a year if you go over your invisible credit line, instead of what AMEX does do, which is turn the event into a positive marketing experience. Comcast's idea of a positive customer experience in these cases is to shove a boot up their paying customer's ass as far as possible, in the name of "fairness".
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! | |
|
| | Ha ha ha. One year account suspension? I'd cancel service immediately and go to a competing service. Morons. You don't punish customers, customers punish you with their wallets.
--
Got a V3 or a V3i or an L7? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com and »hacktheL7.com
| |
| |  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Ha ha ha. said by GilbertMark:One year account suspension? I'd cancel service immediately and go to a competing service. Morons. You don't punish customers, customers punish you with their wallets. In this situation, Comcast is punishing the customers with THEIR wallets. | |
| | |  GeekNJPremium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ | Re: Ha ha ha. Comcast isn't punishing the one customer, it is protecting all the other customers.
For those high usage users, Comcast is losing money. They are better off without them. | |
|
| | | like they care, if you are going to cost them more than what you pay. | |
| | | | Oh if it were so easy. Not everyone has somewhere else to turn to. DSL technology has been around almost like forever, but my neighborhood just got it late last year. Once I found that out, I called Time Warner to price match what AT&T offers currently to new subscribers else I leave, and they did match it and gave me $5 off my TV bill too. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by GilbertMark:One year account suspension? I'd cancel service immediately and go to a competing service. Morons. You don't punish customers, customers punish you with their wallets. This is what Comcast is betting on... I'm sure those in that department would also gladly hold the door open for those overly high use users on their way out.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | problem solved Just move on to dsl. problem solved.
Or really piss them off and get it in the wife name :P | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
·EPB Fiber Optics
·Comcast
| punish and bandwidth hogs punish everyone on the same node they are on too. i guess its better to take the loss by suspending one account for overuse than to have 10 people in the same neighborhood call and cancel for slow speeds. so yes, we do speak with our wallets. | |
| | CPUYODA
join:2003-01-25
Johnson City, TN Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: punish Grandma won't notice or use the speed.....and that's the problem...
Cable networks are birdnests.....they have to actively do this to keep their quality control up.
To quote Python....."It's inherent in the system"
Cable is fine for most,DSL is for those of us who use it relentlessly(your mileage may vary). | |
|
| | If you're going over caps you're either (1) running a server (chances are, a violation of the agreement) or (2) running P2P (which is illegal). Period.
I download large files almost nightly and my 360 is constantly using the internet connection to download trailers or whatnot, or even updates. I use a LOT of bandwidth. Yet I've never been threatened with anything, ever. And I've been an on-again-off-again customer of Cox for years.
If you're a bandwidth hog, you're doing something you shouldn't be. Period. Want a business class connection? Pay for it. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
2 edits | State what the caps are... It's a very simple concept. If you cap, state what the caps are. Cox seems to be able to do it. But that's okay. The telcos are coming with true wireline competition and companies like Comcast will have to start providing decent service for a decent price.
I know a lot of people around here that are very happy that Comcast sold the local cable systems to Time Warner. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
2 edits | How many people on Verizon/SBC have had these complaints? None.. because real ISPs don't put invisible caps in place.
It's ironic that cable ISPs compare themself to DSL with a BMW vs Honda Civic mentality, when someone asks why they charge more. In reality, there is no quality increase, because of issues like this. I can use DSL without fear of suspension, I can use FIOS without fear of suspension, but the "BMW" of broadband is the one telling me I can't use my connection anymore. It's not believeable that they can be both the capper and the BMW. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | Comcast needs to face the FIOS Music Look, I never got a warning letter from Comcast and probably never even came close to hitting their invisible caps. But I dumped Comcast TV and HSI the minute Verizon lighted up FIOs in my neighborhood.
Why? Because I consider Comcast to have a "cable" attitude and approach. It made me question their commitment to my privacy.
That "cable" attitude shows in things like Comcast's misleading advertising ("Unlimited" means unlimited, not virtually unlimited), unpublished caps (unfair), constant unjustified price increases, refusal to honor certain provisions of the local cable franchise agreement and some unprofessional install practices I observed around my area.
For all Verizon's bad points, and there are many, I take comfort in their "telco" approach to their business and my privacy.
--
p.s. I am not a nut. | |
|  hitachi369Embrace Your RightsPremium
join:2001-10-03
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:4
·AT&T U-Verse
| Not that bad but still enough where I would get booted. I don't think my usage is that extreme, I have cut down ALOT from what I was doing. Either way I know comcast would call bitching, whatever at&t hasn't said a word. Once I get my house I'll be comcast free. Living in an apt facing the wrong direction is killing me. | |
| |
See 16 replies to this post | |
 ONiallYum, CitizenPremium
join:2002-11-18
Portland, OR | it doesn't wholly matter how much you download... ...its when you do it. with the local nodes unable to meet the subscribed rates of all end users, you will have issues during peak hours, even if not a single person on the node pulls down 300G per month.
the long term consumption really doesn't matter until you want to put off upgrading the backbone links. it doesn't make sense to have the entire network allocated at the summation of all end user's bandwidth, because typically there are no situations where you would expect all end users to be running their connections at max capacity. when you have a certain number of users that are constantly running near their allocation, it impacts the amount of bandwidth that the backbone must be able to support.
i see this cap as a way to stave off the investment into distribution and backbone bandwidth increases...
comcast could better manage this by improving bandwidth allocations to the end users. allocations between the end users and the local node should be a summation of the subscription rates. they have priced tiers for throughput rates, but they are artificial tiers so long as they cannot support the summation of that usage. it seems that these issues are the result of bad marketing, and engineering based on least cost. that's fine, if that's what they sell, and that's what you want to buy, but you have to know what it is, and it takes a lot of digging to figure it out.
i'm a comcast customer, and i am fine with my 2M average throughput. The bill says I pay for 6M, when it should say, 'up to 6M'...but it is still better than a dedicated T1. rarely are my throughput rates down below 1.5M, and I don't upload much that i would require synchronous rates.
--
i drink with bears for weekend carnivals. | |
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: it doesn't wholly matter how much you download... said by ONiall:...its when you do it. with the local nodes unable to meet the subscribed rates of all end users, you will have issues during peak hours, even if not a single person on the node pulls down 300G per month. If you want to compensate for "Peak Hours" usage, than weight the usage by time-frame (ie: You charge 1.5 or 2.0 units of usage for use during "Peak Hours" like phone rates used to be prior to 24/7 rates). Each user gets x-Units/Month for their use AND there is a Web Page that you can view to see how you are doing (Like you get for Web Page Hosting Bandwidth). This can be a soft cap in that if you exceed it and do not have any impact you will not get stomped on. Once you exceed your allocation, there should be an indication of your "excessive" usage and (if you are being over charged by the weighting factor [ie: Even though you were active during "Peak Hours" no-one-else on your node was so there was no impact]) your allocation for the month can be bumped if justified.
So long as I am not informed of (and can monitor) my usage to see if I am violating the limits that the Cable Company CLAIMS I agreed to, I feel that there are no contracted limits and I should be able to download whenever (and for how long) I want. There must be some measurable guideline by which I can see how my usage compared with what I have purchased from the Cable Company.
BTW: Without a DOCUMENTED Standard there can not be a way to identify "Bandwidth Hogs" since if you kick off the first batch, there will be new "Bandwidth Hogs" (who use no more bandwidth than they did before the first batch got booted) simply because SOMEONE has to use more than the average of all usage. Unless everyone uses the same amount of Bandwidth, some are going to use less than the average and some more. | |
|
| | Just a thought I'm driving on a highway on a sunny afternoon
I'm thinking..hmm...weird...no speed limit posted after driving for a while
I keep on driving and driving....
Suddenly, a cop pulls me over
Both of us pull over, I roll down window,
Me: Good afternoon, can I help you officer?
Cop: Good afternoon sir. Do you know you were driving too fast?
Me: Ummm, no
Cop: Yes, you were speeding.
Me: Ummm, what's the speed limit?
Cop: I'm sorry sir, but I can't tell you that
Me: ....... | |
| | | | Re: Just a thought I'll extend your thought:
Me: Good afternoon, can I help you officer?
Cop: Good afternoon sir. Do you know you were driving too fast?
Me: Ummm, no
Cop: Yes, you were speeding.
Me: Ummm, what's the speed limit?
Cop: I'm sorry sir, but I can't tell you that
Me: But I was driving even faster than this yesterday and you didn't stop me then...
Cop: You weren't speeding yesterday, I pulled over someone who was going way faster than you.
Me: ?? Then why was I speeding today??
Cop: Well, today there has only been a couple Grandma's driving at 25mph, so you are driving too fast compared to them.
Me: ... | |
| | | quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Just a thought Makes perfect sense to me... if you're going 80, another guy is going 90, and there's only one cop, he gets busted. If you're going 80 and everyone else is going slower, you should be the one that gets a ticket. | |
| | | | | | Re: Just a thought So, by your reasoning, I could drive 2 mph, and eventually have everyone else pulled over and ticketed, unless they decide to drive at 1 mph, at which point I would park, and . . . . yeah. | |
| | | | | | Yeah, it makes sense until you wake up and notice that THERE ARE NO "SPEED LIMIT" SIGNS in the terms of service. I'd like to see what the reaction would be if all speed limit signs were taken down and cops just started pulling people over on a whim. | |
|
 AlakarFacts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI | Do other Cable companies cap? I have a question. I use DSL, and we don't have Comcast in this area. Does Time Warner also have these types of caps? I've seen alot of posts on these Comcast caps, but none for Time Warner. They use the same basic technology, so wouldn't TW also need to set these caps, or do they just roll out more hardware?
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
| radam
join:2004-02-13
Fairfax Station, VA
1 edit | Comcast caps I read the article on the forum about Comast applying invisible caps on downloads. Let's see, terrible effective bandwidth... invisible caps... sounds like there's cause for a class action suit to me.. or at least reason for local government to bring in more competition. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Comcast caps said by radam:I read the article on the forum about Comast applying invisible caps on downloads. Let's see, terrible effective bandwidth... invisible caps... sounds like there's cause for a class action suit to me.. or at least reason for local government to bring in more competition. Class action? You are joking right?
In order to have a class action or a lawsuit in general, you have to have something to sue over. Are you going to sue because they have "an invisible cap" limit? Where are you entitled to know a cap? What they DID tell you is "average residential use"... THAT is something you DID agree to... and are getting.
Local GIVErnment bringing in more competition? The local GIVErnment could really give a ratts ass less about internet service.
The amount of use that people are using to get these letters are generally in the neighborhood of what a business would use. You don't have a right to use what ever you want.. and they are not required to publish a set limit.. not to mention, you don't want them to.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | | | Re: Comcast caps said by fiberguy:said by radam:I read the article on the forum about Comast applying invisible caps on downloads. Let's see, terrible effective bandwidth... invisible caps... sounds like there's cause for a class action suit to me.. or at least reason for local government to bring in more competition. Class action? You are joking right? In order to have a class action or a lawsuit in general, you have to have something to sue over. Are you going to sue because they have "an invisible cap" limit? Where are you entitled to know a cap? What they DID tell you is "average residential use"... THAT is something you DID agree to... and are getting. Local GIVErnment bringing in more competition? The local GIVErnment could really give a ratts ass less about internet service. The amount of use that people are using to get these letters are generally in the neighborhood of what a business would use. You don't have a right to use what ever you want.. and they are not required to publish a set limit.. not to mention, you don't want them to. Questionable and misleading business practices is enough for me, and most judges willing to endorse a class-action status.
Comcast couldn't stand on a leg in court to say the number of impacted is so few as to represent their network as 'stable' yet unable to remain so over a paltry-few customers using their services within the published limits as boundaries.
No one is questioning heavy-users the the ethical conscious implicating their next door neighbor's service, but rather that Comcrap's approach is to penal first without publicly making aware of the limits being violated. | |
|
| | Pay top dollar and then not use it? You know I don't see why anyone who would be willing to pay a premium price for one of the fastest consumer broadband connections should be expected to use it in moderation. | |
| | | we should rebell against comcast! we should tell everyone with comcast to run their connection 24/7 using full bandwith and show comcast we mean bussiness they cant take us all down | |
|  beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium
join:2000-05-06
Eastern PA | Legit services? IMO I see this as a step for Comcast to eliminate or at least cripple competing video services..
things like iTunes, Vongo and the like where you can purchase and download/view movies..
with a standard def movie going at about 1.5 Gis each (iTunes), imagine a HD movie, or what if one chooses to stream TV?
as things move along it wouldn't surprise me if someday we could subscribe to TV packages where one could stream regular TV shows, I could see one breaking Comcast's "300MB" monthly limit easily.
with the "invisible" cap they impose this will effectively kill the competition.
as it stands right now tho, I question those who are now hitting the cap.. WTF is out there to download?
I think maybe it's time to step away from the computer - I mean there is only so much porn/warez/movies/music one can take .. then again I can be wrong  | |
|
| |
|
