Comcast Considering 250GB Cap, Overage Fees

I agree, well said.

The 250GB cap is quite reasonable and this is a good straightforward approach. The overage charge amount can be argued about but that is a minor detail that consumers should be able to live with(at least while the prices are in the range that is being discussed).

I don't understand the idea about "The new cap will be coupled with plans to increase enforcement of DMCA letters sent to P2P pirates." or "Reading between the lines of their new deal with the Distributed Computing Industry Association, it seems likely that they'll ultimately be throttling just illegal P2P traffic, once network hardware evolves."

The whole point of caps is to give an open reasonable way of dealing with users who consume excessively, so there should be no reason for this kind of nonsense unless the intent was never really to constrain "bandwidth hogs" in the first place. This only reinforces that maybe this has never been about what it is claimed it has been about.

People shouldn't let this sort of thing slip by while they are arguing over a 250GB cap.

Let's try to make progress here. The cap is reasonable. Reasonable people should be able to live with it. The other proposals are not reasonable and people should make a stink about that.

i'm stuck in the middle here. i think 250GB is a lot. i honestly don't know how much i'd get close to that.

however here's what i don't get. one assumes that they are doing this to thwart users from hogging up bandwidth.

this approach works but its effects are felt later on, not immediately. what i mean is, say someone just decides 'let me spend an entire day downloading X and Y files.' that would hog up the connection for everyone else in that neighborhood. and someone could do that if they wanted to. so they keep downloading with free reign like a maniac, without reaching the monthly cap. the person has no reason to stop. and isn't being speed capped or throttled so how effective is it when you are talking about the immediate effects this will have on their network.

i mean you can really go at it if you want and ration the days you download which would suck for Comcast. this monthly cap alone won't really solve their issues.

i assumes that Comcast won't be throttling or capping connections if users download/upload excessively.

i am not a Comcast customer, thank god. i really don't understand why they just don't upgrade their damn network. all these tactics to try to manage their bandwidth all could probably be easily solved if they just upgrade their network.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Also, look at it this way--- it will "encourage" people to NOT switch their source of video entertainment (IE TV, Movies) from the Cable company to new third party options via IP and their broadband connection... due to the cost.

IE, a handy way to 1) Help control bandwidth expense 2) Generate some additional revenue from heavy users and 3) Put the brakes on the competition from video over the 'Net.

Looks like all wins to them, doesn't it.

I agree, and the striaght bandwidth plan I suggested isn't far off in price from this plan, but it does assure them a base income/per sub.
I'm sure the exact numbers/limits will be adjusted depending on the test and early launch results.

I fixed it for you.

That is the part of this plan I like the most. Basically Comcast is saying, if there's going to be a limit, it's going to be a very high limit. A high limit makes it difficult for their competition (FIOS/DSL) to draw comparisons. They're also telling their industry that Comcast is the leader and to quit making Cable technology look bad by imposing stupidly-low bandwidth caps!

Could they possible be doing this so that down the road you can't get all your TV / Movies over their pipes. In a way trying to force you to buy their products. As I know they are scared of becoming a dumb tube. Any thoughts?

Hello, DSL!

At least I won't have to deal with torrent throttling anymore.

THANK YOU. someone that actually understands. and doesnt whine for the sake of whining....
thumbs up!

Then maybe, the FCC will say.. "Ok, go ahead.. but.. as long as your adding caps, if you sell service at 10mbps, that's what you HAVE to provide. Anything less, and you have to credit your customer(s)".. Naw.. just day dreaming. Martin doesn't have the balls.

Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm

any cap is rediculous. People seem to forget those demos are huge nowadays...

I got into both Conan betas, the first one over the weekend was a 7gb download. the second one, was 12 gigs of downloading.... that's already 19gb. linux distros are huge, at least 4gb. a average game demo is about 2gb. they implement this cap, as someone mentioned earlier, it will only get worse later as everything gets bigger...

only 3 years ago we were installing games off 2-3cds, now im seeing bought games installing 12-15gb on my hdd.

my biggest fear is comcrap will put their cap in now, it may only affect that 1% that downloads over 250gb, but later on, when 250gb is nothing to download, will comcast upgrade or remove the cap? or will they drag their feet about it like they have been dragging their feet over the docsis 3.0?

wahh wahh only 250 gigs a month. Ya well in Toronto with Rogers, we are getting 60 gig cap and have to pay overcharges, I would trade you any day!

+1

You're right. And the smart LECs used USF funds to get it done without costing them a penny. Just look at Bellsouth's (now AT&T) DSLAM and remote terminal ployments in Mississippi as an example.

}Davoice

yup. It doesn't make sense if you are buying and downloading their content for them to discourage it by putting a cap on it.

+2

Are they preparing to stop websites that will compete for media to the consumer? Netflix and many others are starting to stream movies over Comcast's line, directly competing with their own system in place. (Comcast says "How dare they use our network to compete!")

This is the only logical justification as to why they are doing this. How can .5 to 1% of users effect the usage policies of millions of others? Or do they have insufficient bandwidth to effectively meet the internet's growing needs? Hmmm....

What would happen if:

1) analog channels were completely eliminated (when was this due? 2009 sometime?)

2) DOCSIS3 was a reality (e.g. implemented instead of talked about)

3) move from MPEG2 to MPEG4 Part 10 (H.264, same stuff as Apple uses on iTunes)

4) move to an /ALL/ IP-based network. If Verizon Wireless is planning on doing just that with their eventual LTE upgrade, then f-in' cable operators can do that NOW. Once you shift to an all-IP based network, it's easy to send any type of packets (including H.264) you want across the network

5) stop distributing/supporting set-top boxes altogether (partially implemented) - only give out M-Cards and follow TiVo's model. TiVo can upgrade their Linux set-top software across the internet - if the M-Card was protocol agnostic (which I believe it is), then it should be able (at least in theory) to use the M-Card to decode either MPEG2 or H.264, and you could change from one to the other on a per-channel basis, which would allow for easy migration of channels from MPEG2->H.264, thus saving bandwidth.

6) continue to reinvest profits in upgrading last-mile infrastructure to fiberoptical connections. On the flipside, tie executives' bonuses as well as salaries to annual performance - those should vary accordingly. Fill the belly and fulfill the ambitions of the guys doing the 'dirty' work (e.g. those rolling out fiberoptic cables).

7) move most if not all billing/servicing online. Close local offices who are filled with people with nothing better to do than sit on their lard asses and give over set-top boxes - a job a monkey could do. Retrain those to roll out fiberoptic cables instead on the last mile. Give out/receive m-cards via USPS mail.

God, do I have to keep going on and on as to what's off with Comcast before they catch on that capping bandwidth is only a symptom of a larger problem they are experiencing?

I want the cable world to work for ALL - including those jerkoffs who have nothing better to do than run P2P all day/night long - at least that keeps them busy doing something other than stealing or wasting time otherwise.. this way they get to be happy and make others happy with their P2P lifted materials....

Comcast's super-secret bandwidth limits have been in place for almost 5 years: »Comcast Bandwidth Exceeded Notice!!!

I have FIOS 15mbit upstream. Not my fault other ISP's are crap.

People who use over a certain amount of bandwidth are costing the ISP money, so it's foolish to criticise that ISP for capping bandwidth to prevent this. I'm not familiar with what Comcast charges, but if it's in the $40 range, I would say 250 gigabytes is quite reasonable, so bitching about it really makes no sense. What might be reasonably argued is that the overage charges are quite excessive. If they're going to charge the customer for usage that goes above and beyond what is provisioned in the normal monthly fee, they should really try to charge close to, or exactly the amount that each gigabyte costs. $1.50 doesn't seem anywhere near this criterion.

I used to be against capping, but that was when ISPs were doing it as a pure cash grab, with ridiculously low and insulting caps. Reasonable limits and overage charges are fine though, and in this situation, at least the former seems to be applicable.

Doing the math ( 2629743.83*(0.00000011920929*0.25))*10 ), which would be "(seconds in month*(TB in a Mb*BW in TB))*10" (an old equation I found a while back - it seems to be accurate, but I can't say for sure) shows that downloading 100 KB/s non stop for an entire month would be required to reach 250GB. While I know there's plenty of music fans, I personally wouldn't consider it to be easy to hit 250GB a month.

It does not violate Network Neutrality any more than subscribing to the 6 Mbps or the 8 Mbps plan are non-neutral.

By imposing a cap, Comcast will be defining a maximum average bandwidth that is different from their speed. In this case, 250 GB per month divides out to 768 Kbps.

This is why heavy P2P users get surprised by the limits of Cable technology. Tell someone who P2P's heavily that Comcast only will give them 95 KB/s (combined, up and down, if used 24/7). They'll be shocked! DSL and FIOS users tend to get up to the bandwidth on the ad (regardless if viewed as speed or consumption). Heavy P2P users will tell you that they break 95 KB/s constantly!

Add to this fact that stupid companies make the limits of cable look even worse when they impose needlessly low caps.

Again, for 80% of the customers, this is a difference that doesn't matter. Cable is even fine for the occassional P2P'er and for most of everyone else.

If heavy P2P users have a choice, they really should go to DSL as it better meets their needs and their style. This is not hype, it's physics. It's a limit imposed by how Cable Internet was laid out years ago. Switching to DSL doesn't really help or hurt either Cable or DSL. You're offloading some of the toughest bandwidth that cable has to manage onto a system better suited for it. And even if you use more of it after switching to DSL, the TelCo still eeks out a profit because transit bandwidth is dirt cheap. (This is a generalization, not all systems are built the same.)

By setting the right caps, Comcast is taking a risk by telling a truth that its competitors might exploit -- but it's the right thing to do. By setting them high when compared to caps laid by others in the industry, they're kicking their cable brethren in the ass for making the technology look worse than it actually is. Either way, Comcast's move (if this rumor is true) is good for all consumers and its a step that should be applauded.

hope they lose customers for even trying something like this as a trail balloon

how apathetic (aka stupid) customers really may be to fall for it..

its going to limit the expansion of IPTV dramatically. Comcast doesn't want the competition of DirecTV's on demand system or IPTV. Think if a user watched 15 HD movies per month. I'm not sure how large each file is to download to the STB but I would imagine they would be in the many gigs for a 2 hour movie.

Last month I did 270 GB, the most probably was 350. So if they are going to charge me extra, they might as well give me better speeds so I can use more bandwidth.

This point is moot as we both agree on your previous statement, but let's continue for the sake of examination.

Purchasing the additional bandwidth from their upstream providers is not the only issue.

Actually bandwidth costs are pretty linear the first 50 dollars a customer pays for all the customer service maintenance taxes etc. After that were still talking less than 15 cents per gigabyte and comcast is a transit carrier as well. I have OC3's from both Comcast and Time Warner in use around the country.

That being said if they think they're going to charge 1.50 per gigabyte I will begin to organize an effort for government regulation of overage charges. I will not see a Enron of the internet rise to power.

At their prices it would cost hundreds of dollars for any decent online backup.

They would of been more resposible to put no hard caps but tiers above certain usage. Is 100 dollars a month so terrible for a user that might download a few thousand gigs of data legitimately?

What then for companies that provide you services. Comcast would be able to outprice them on virtue of they control the cost of data now. So a HD download from Apple could cost you 9 dollars on top of what Apple charged. How is that fair for Apple?

This is net neutrality at it's core. They were stopped from charging content providers and now they figured it out that they can charge you and get away with it.

The day Martin says that is the day Comcast sues him directly and not the FCC as a whole. He can't make them provide an actual speed due to they use "up to" and actually Cox has caps; nobody tried to tell them they had to provide the full speed they claim "up to".

Well that settles it once and for all then. You, personally, have not used over 250 gigs so that stat, of course, applies to everyone else.