  KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL
1 edit | Torrent retransmission included? Retransmitted packets (those initiated by Sandvine et. al.) account for how much of your cap?
Just curious.
edit: and what about unsolicited e-mail/spam? | |
|
 | | | Re: Torrent retransmission included? said by Kylemaul:Retransmitted packets (those initiated by Sandvine et. al.) account for how much of your cap? Just curious. edit: and what about unsolicited e-mail/spam? And hack attempts?
Port scans? | |
|
| | | | Re: Torrent retransmission included? and uploads?
if you look at the comcast FAQs on this, the examples they give include both send (upload) and download.
it would appear the 250G limit includes both uploads and downloads. | |
|
| |  maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| said by AstroBoy:said by Kylemaul:Retransmitted packets (those initiated by Sandvine et. al.) account for how much of your cap? Just curious. edit: and what about unsolicited e-mail/spam? And hack attempts? Port scans? They all count. They could say that they won't start billing until 255 Gb, just to account for those packets etc.
What's more interesting: SAY you are downloading a 4 Gb DVD ISO from a server that does not support resuming, and Comcast has an outage at 3.5 Gb download. Who pays for the difference? And more importantly, can a customer service rep see your data transfers, or will they have to escalate it to another tier who can?
And yes, I have had that happen.... a few weeks ago the SoCal TWC area was plagued with outages, and I had a download break on me that was 4.3 Gb in size. And since it wasn't a torrent but a straight HTTP download, it cut off and I had to restart. Not a big deal if you do not have a transfer cap, but it IS a big deal if you do.
Most important of all: You have a meter for electricity, for water, and for gas attached to your house that you can read. If caps are implemented, a website should be available to log in to with your main account, and give you the amounts of downloaded and uploaded data. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Torrent retransmission included? **sigh** Why is it nobody seems the be catching on to the fact that there is no billing on the comcast side from everything they are saying? If you read the FAQ's on their page, the worst you'd get is slap on the wrist and a "hey, you went over the limit. try to cut back" the first time you pass the limit. It's only after repeated occurances that you risk having them suspend your service.
Now that I think about it, the wording on the site is along the lines of "if you exceed the 250gb threshold AND are in the top percentage of the users....." I wonder if the second part is to help even the field as overall consumption increases. Obviously if EVERYBODY keeps increasing their data consumption, then the people who currently are at the top of the heap will most likely to continue to increase their consumption as well... | |
|
| kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | What about MESSENGER SPAM, which are unsolicited UDP packets that are fairly large as far as packets go?? Those could account for a fair amount of bandwidth over the course of a month, that your PC or router likely ignores. | |
|
 KfedkaPremium
join:2005-05-06
Spokane, WA | More Marketing for comcast. .... | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Serious Policymakers? We apparently have policymakers that don't even use email, much less any other internet technology. The lobbyists have such an easy job manipulating things to their liking when their audience is clueless. | |
|
| | | Re: Serious Policymakers? said by jmn1207:We apparently have policymakers that don't even use email, much less any other internet technology. The lobbyists have such an easy job manipulating things to their liking when their audience is clueless. I disagree. We have policymakers that aren't paying for services out of their own pocket. I do agree however, that they are clueless! | |
|
| | | | Re: Serious Policymakers? most are clueless and easily manipulated, others simply don't care and are easily manipulated and the rest take the money to not care. | |
|
|
|  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Streaming movies? said by spewak:Sooooo much for Netflix streaming movies! Bwahhaaaa, Snail mail lives on!!!!!!  I suspect you'll see agreements between providers such as Netflix and ISPS such as Comcast that would allow for additional bandwidth usage from that provider (Netflix). | |
|
| |  kleinml
join:2008-04-18
Levittown, PA | Re: Streaming movies? said by Rob:said by spewak:Sooooo much for Netflix streaming movies! Bwahhaaaa, Snail mail lives on!!!!!! I suspect you'll see agreements between providers such as Netflix and ISPS such as Comcast that would allow for additional bandwidth usage from that provider (Netflix). And such agreements are exactly what Net Neutrality is all about. You will wind up with comcast having a contract not to cap Netflix but AT&T doesn't so why would you buy AT&T if your a heavy Netflix user. Were on a slippery slope with this. Mark my words!!! | |
|
| | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Streaming movies? said by kleinml:said by Rob:said by spewak:Sooooo much for Netflix streaming movies! Bwahhaaaa, Snail mail lives on!!!!!! I suspect you'll see agreements between providers such as Netflix and ISPS such as Comcast that would allow for additional bandwidth usage from that provider (Netflix). And such agreements are exactly what Net Neutrality is all about. You will wind up with comcast having a contract not to cap Netflix but AT&T doesn't so why would you buy AT&T if your a heavy Netflix user. Were on a slippery slope with this. Mark my words!!! Yep. I was hinting to net neutrality in my original post. | |
|
| | |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1 | A slippery slope indeed. I fear for the future. 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! | |
|
| | | | Much more likely that you'll be seeing lots more agreements between former Comcast customers and Verizon FIOS. This is where the rubber meets the road kids; FIOS has a huge amount of bandwidth overhead so their unlikely to follow suit anytime soon.
Expect the first FIOS commercial touting their speed advantage AND no caps momentarily. I could write the commercials for them: Comcast claims they have a fiber network and fast speeds, so why the caps if we don't need them?
Kiss your customers goodbye where Verizon is competing with you Comcast. | |
|
| | |  telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | Re: Streaming movies? When it comes to bandwidth I think you need to understand the difference between the last mile vs first 1000+ miles. FiOS is only the last mile. Verizon has 999+ miles of the same issues that Comcast and others have.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
|
| | | | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: Streaming movies? said by telcolackey5:When it comes to bandwidth I think you need to understand the difference between the last mile vs first 1000+ miles. FiOS is only the last mile. Verizon has 999+ miles of the same issues that Comcast and others have. But I thought the issue WAS in the last mile with cable. The whole 1000 miles is worthless if any single mile has limitations.
cw | |
|
| | | | | telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | Re: Streaming movies? Nope... There are capital costs end to end around bandwidth | |
|
| | | | | | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: Streaming movies? said by telcolackey5:Nope... There are capital costs end to end around bandwidth Well duh. But they are claiming that there is not enough bandwidth, and thusly they have to use caps to prevent their network from being abused. If they can charge more for that bandwidth, then they are just looking to get paid more for it. Bandwidth, and the usage of such, is a step function. You pay for 10gigabits per second, you pay for 10Gbps, even if you only use 2. If they are seeing congestion in those links A) it should be simple to prove. and B) They should be prioritizing their traffic WHILE they perform upgrades to alleviate the issue.
cw | |
|
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Verizon owns their own tier 1 bandwidth provider (the old MCI Worldcom)- now, obviously internet access still isn't free, but it does change the situation from Verizon's perspective... After all, "the new" at&t is in the same position, and they've been on the record for saying they'll at least consider caps. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Streaming movies? that is sort of what i was thinking. don't most, if not all tier 1 providers peer with each other (free flow of info for the most part)? all other tiers need to 'buy' bandwidth from the next tier up as a far i understand the whole tier and peering system.
call me crazy but it seems that the telcos have a large presence in the tier 1 group and the cablecos have perhaps none. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| said by telcolackey5:When it comes to bandwidth I think you need to understand the difference between the last mile vs first 1000+ miles. FiOS is only the last mile. Verizon has 999+ miles of the same issues that Comcast and others have. no they don't. They own the largest tier-1 national/international fiber backbone in the world. They don't have a bandwidth shortage at all. | |
|
| | | | |  CHS
@comcast.net | Re: Streaming movies? you obviously don't know how much it costs to light fiber. Just cause you have glass in the ground doesn't mean you have all the bandwidth you need. | |
|
| | | | telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | The reality is that national fiber is the cheaper part these days and many of the big guys (including CableCos) have it. The expensive part is to light and grow the router and optics infrastructure. Tier1 status means less as well, as again, much of the cost is the capital to manage bandwidth growth end to end.
I see a lot of posts that talk about "congestion", "just upgrade the network", etc. The Internet is growing every month and congestion IS addressed by constantly upgrading the network. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc are doing this for the full end to end path and they have similar costs and the same issues on the first mile, middle 1000's of miles and the last mile.
People can continue to think that there are major differences, but there are not many. FTTH doesn't really buy you too much unless you were running all copper today. If are running HFC (which many telco's including Verizon are considering) is fiber closer to the home and not a far stretch to covert to when needed.
Similar issues, similar business directions, different paths for marketing reasons.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
|
| | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by UncleDirtNap:Much more likely that you'll be seeing lots more agreements between former Comcast customers and Verizon FIOS. This is where the rubber meets the road kids; FIOS has a huge amount of bandwidth overhead so their unlikely to follow suit anytime soon. Expect the first FIOS commercial touting their speed advantage AND no caps momentarily. I could write the commercials for them: Comcast claims they have a fiber network and fast speeds, so why the caps if we don't need them? Kiss your customers goodbye where Verizon is competing with you Comcast. That is until FiOS starts with caps too. | |
|
| | | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Streaming movies? said by Rob:said by UncleDirtNap:Much more likely that you'll be seeing lots more agreements between former Comcast customers and Verizon FIOS. This is where the rubber meets the road kids; FIOS has a huge amount of bandwidth overhead so their unlikely to follow suit anytime soon. Expect the first FIOS commercial touting their speed advantage AND no caps momentarily. I could write the commercials for them: Comcast claims they have a fiber network and fast speeds, so why the caps if we don't need them? Kiss your customers goodbye where Verizon is competing with you Comcast. That is until FiOS starts with caps too. FiOS doesnt have the bandwidth limits cable or copper have
and FiOS not naving caps could be a big selling point
imo id pay MORE for FiOS of the same speed as cable i have now to not ever have caps
and i think a lot other people would too... | |
|
| | | dt_dc
join:2006-09-27
Herndon, VA | said by UncleDirtNap:Expect the first FIOS commercial touting their speed advantage AND no caps momentarily. I could write the commercials for them: Comcast claims they have a fiber network and fast speeds, so why the caps if we don't need them? The only difference between Verizon and Comcast is Comcast defines excessive as 250GB/month (and reserves the right to redefine excessive as they deem fit at their sole discrection yada yada yada).
Verizon just fails to define excessive (and reserves the right to redefine excessive as they deem fit at their sole discrection yada yada yada).
»netservices.verizon.net/portal/l···policies
quote:
VERIZON ONLINE TERMS OF SERVICE
This Agreement is between you as our Subscriber and Verizon Internet Services Inc. (or its affiliates listed in Section 16) and it sets forth the terms and conditions under which you agree to use and we agree to provide the Service.
THIS IS A CONTRACT. PLEASE READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS DO NOT USE THE SERVICE AND CONTACT US IMMEDIATELY TO TERMINATE IT.
(...)
4.3 Restrictions on Use. (...) You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service (...). Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.
(...)
ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
1. General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or terminate your Service, if the use of your Service by you or anyone using it, in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other Verizon policies, (...) interferes with the functioning or use of the Internet or the Verizon network by Verizon or other users
(...)
2. Specific Examples of AUP Violations. The following are examples of conduct which may lead to termination of your Service. Without limiting the general policy in Section 1, it is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to:
(...)
(h) engage in any conduct harmful to the Verizon network, the Internet generally or other Internet users;
(i) generate excessive amounts of email or other Internet traffic;
| |
|
| | | Add
@comcast.net | Let's not forget Verizon will also let the Gov't tap your phone without a warrant. Ya, I'm going with them... | |
|
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Streaming movies? It's an interesting thing- the whole warrantless wiretapping thing was about international calls... and guess which companies own many of the transatlantic and transpacific cables? Verizon Communications, Inc. and at&t Inc... the big 2 telcos have grown to the point where it's very difficult to avoid them. | |
|
| Shirpa
join:2008-08-25
Ozark, MO | Forget Streaming Movies...I stream music from Pandora. Download usage for that alone is 120G a month on my end.
Anyone remember the mid-to-late 90's when the government was going to step in to 'force' the ISP's to keep their networks upgraded (most everyone should be on fiber by now) so this wouldn't be an issue??? | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| OK I think caps can only go up. There's still Powell's dark vision of Cable vs. Telco. Comcast is now the industry leader on caps, if a competitor makes a cap then they will have to match Comcast or look bad.
Caps are bad in principle, but as a practical matter 250GB is not too bad. It will only go up in the future. Metered billing is worse in principle, but if the metering is at wholesale prices (10c per GB?) then in practice we'll live with it. | |
|
|  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | Re: OK said by axus:I think caps can only go up. hahaha That's a good one. The large caps to start are to ease you into excepting caps. Then over time "excuses" will be made why they have to be lowered and overage fees raised.
It's like here locally (Chicago) they are talking about putting speed enforcement cameras on the Interstates, but our gov. said Hey don't worry we are only going to go after people who are REALLY speeding 15-20+mph over limit. *cough cough* for now *cough*. As the need for more revenue grows that limit WILL be lowered under the BS guise of safety to secure more funds. Just like after you're are comfy and cozy with your new 250gb cap, Comcast will alert you that the broadband boogeyman is back and they'll have to lower the caps to 200gb to "give everyone a fair share".  It will continue till people wake up and do something about it. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by axus:I think caps can only go up. ... I don't understand why people continue to think the caps will go up. The caps aren't there because of congestion, they are there to give the illusion of scarcity.
if the caps stick, they will likely only go up very incrementally and only over a long period (couple of years). | |
|
mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX | It's fair, but MUST be temporary I think the cap is fair, and Comcast has a right to implement those caps... but they are DREAMING if they think they can compete within the next 5 years if they still have caps and have not upgraded their infrastructure.
The reaction in my home town of Houston has been down right negative. There have even been calls to subsidize the building of fiber to attract FiOS...
It will be interesting to see how well people tolerate it. From my experience, people will raise hell, get bored and deal with it, then complain about it in 5 years when people in FiOS markets are downloading 1080p movies while people in Comcast markets are still watching YouTube. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | what's next for Comcast? Are they going to start monitoring cable viewership too?
"You watched too many movies this month." | |
|
| | | Re: what's next for Comcast? said by goalieskates:Are they going to start monitoring cable viewership too? "You watched too many movies this month." I don't think they will put a cap on there $7 PPV movies | |
|
| | | | Re: what's next for Comcast? said by Joe12345678:I don't think they will put a cap on there $7 PPV movies Nope, but what about the much-hyped (by them) 'On-Demand' programs?
I frequently watch their free HD movies. Won't be surprised if they decide to start charging me extra for that, too. | |
|
| | | They already know exactly what you watch. I don't know about analog but if you have a digital box, they know. | |
|
 fancydancerPerception is realityPremium
join:2002-08-28
Springfield, IL | They need real-time usage so users can know when they are approaching their cap limit. Its only fair; cell phones do it so you don't get hammered with a huge overage charge. I understand this is possible a huge overhead issue for Comcast, but hey, they brought it upon themselves.
--
Thank you for keeping this a work-free environment! | |
|
| | Seedboxes This is the perfect time to open up a Hosting company. Anyone who is serious about downloading will move to one to stay under their caps. | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
daslog
join:2002-04-10
Milford, NH | on the meter... My guess is that they have something they use internally that gives them a rough idea, and then they have a tech go in and look at that individuals use in a manual fashion.
There is probably a parallel project going on right now to get a meter that's good enough for public consumption. Just a guess though. | |
|
1 edit | Cap I think 250 GB/month, or 8 GB/day, is pretty freakin generous. But then again, I don't download 4 movies, 15 music albums, and 3 games in a span of 24 hours. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
 Unit649I B U, Who U B?Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA | First Lawsuit? Lets see, seeing as this is effective October 1, I guess we'll see the first lawsuit from a terabyte downloader right around the second of November, eh? | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
 mb
join:2000-07-23
Washington, NJ
1 edit | Cable Mentality has always been the same. They used to charge monthly for each additional outlet. Their only investment, a few feet of coaxial cable and a $3 splitter. In my opinion, the only reasonable limitation on the pipe should be speed, not volume. | |
|
| | I want a 125GB cap.. And pay 1/2 as much! I want a 125GB cap.. And pay 1/2 as much!
My mom wants a 2.5GB cap and pay 1/100 as much. | |
|
|  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: I want a 125GB cap.. And pay 1/2 as much! said by AstroBoy:I want a 125GB cap.. And pay 1/2 as much! My mom wants a 2.5GB cap and pay 1/100 as much. Works for me!
Hit me with a 50GB cap and lower my bill to $10.50 instead of $52.95.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: I want a 125GB cap.. And pay 1/2 as much! said by dadkins:said by AstroBoy:I want a 125GB cap.. And pay 1/2 as much! My mom wants a 2.5GB cap and pay 1/100 as much. Works for me! Hit me with a 50GB cap and lower my bill to $10.50 instead of $52.95. no no no no no no no David. that wouldn't be good for the company. someones got to pay for that 50 foot widescreen tv!
watch that 250gb number drop when overages aren't as much as comcast thought they would be[rogers anyone?]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | | That's what I am talking about.....lower my bill based on how much I actually use since you are going to cap me anyway.
--
God saved me from myself! Thank you, Lord, in the Name of Jesus! | |
|
| telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | Interesting... so of the average user is 5-30G, and the average bill is $X / month does the analogy go the opposite way as well? Hmm... this sounds like something familiar....
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
|
| | | I am all for that I rarely reach 20G | |
|
| | Issue of knowing your usage According to their online FAQ, if you want to know your usage, you should search the Internet for a 3rd party tool.
I've got various computers, my TiVo downloading shows, kids playing with the XBox and other consoles, and who knows what next year. A PC-based tool won't cut it. I can look at my router, but that's not a solution for most Comcast users.
They really need to put your usage on your account page, just like phone companies let you see your remaining minutes, you should see how close you are to the cap.
Otherwise I'm OK with the cap for now. | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
 kadarPremium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00 | First they came First they came for the P2Pers,
- but I was not a P2Per so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the newsgroups,
- but I did not use it, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the heavy users,
- but I was not a heavy user so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
--
The Revolutionary War was fought over a 14% tax, what % are you paying now? | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: First they came Martin Niemoller would be proud that his little WWII poem has become so famous that it is paraphrased as you did. It is a dead on comment about ignoring an issue until it (finally) impacts you and it too late to do anything. | |
|
| |
| | | said by kadar:First they came for the P2Pers, - but I was not a P2Per so I did not speak out. Then they came for the newsgroups, - but I did not use it, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the heavy users, - but I was not a heavy user so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. Truth. Niemoller would be proud.
--
Treason is a matter of dates | |
|
kevin44
join:2004-02-03
Mountain View, CA | AT&T I don't see a problem with a limit, but people have the choice to switch to another provider. Comcast doesn't have their subs locked in, so you can always go to AT&T. | |
|
| |
| | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: AT&T said by Airwolf7:Terms and Conditions Guaranteed Price for 24 Months: Price guarantee applies to monthly recurring charge for a period of 24 months from date of service, and does not include taxes, fees or excessive bandwidth usage charges." Sneaky way of rate increase on a price locked contract. if they dont list a number they can just charge you extra for so called excessive bandwidth usage!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | The only way to send a message is with your wallet. Let them see a dip in subscribers on their next quarterly.
I'm having my family all switch over. Currently my mother has Comcast TV/Internet service, brother has Comcast TV/Phone/Internet service and also Comcast Internet at his place of business.
I pay for half of the services at my mothers house for my sister who is in college even though I don't live there. Their getting Directv and ATT DSL. My brother will also be getting the switcheroo if he wants my help at his place of business. Free labor and I'm the sole person who overseas his network and terminals.
We can all gripe here but unless we hit them back where it hurts, they dont care. They raise rates each year and all people do is continue to pay. They think they're like the oil companies where they adjust rates as they please because they're banking on people not leaving. | |
|
|  DaneJasperSonic.NetPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:7 | said by kevin44:I don't see a problem with a limit, but people have the choice to switch to another provider. Comcast doesn't have their subs locked in, so you can always go to AT&T. Not everyone can get DSL - some folks are in areas only served by one broadband provider.
-Dane | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Spam and phone over internet Someone else raised this point. What about all the spam email you get. How come I have to pay for other peoples crap.
Also what if you have the phone service. Is that going to count towards the cap. I don't have Comcast, but once one company does something like this and makes some sort of money, the rest will follow.
SEEEEEYYAAAAAAA | |
|
|  MichailPremium
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL
kudos:1 | Re: Spam and phone over internet They have stated the phone service won't count against the cap. However, what if you use another VoIP company? | |
|
| |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Spam and phone over internet said by Michail:They have stated the phone service won't count against the cap. However, what if you use another VoIP company? Do you have a source for that?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
| | | MichailPremium
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL
kudos:1 | Re: Spam and phone over internet said by funchords:said by Michail:They have stated the phone service won't count against the cap. However, what if you use another VoIP company? Do you have a source for that? It was a link I followed off of google news. I was in a different location at the time so I no longer have the link. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Sorry that is what I meant. If you use VOIP then your will be using more download and upload. I think it is bull.
Besides trying to make even more money, what other purpose does this download limit service? Is it trying to stop pirating, or file sharing? Don't under stand it.
SEEYAAAAA | |
|
 ScreeIn the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
·Comcast
| well If they are doing this now and eventually implement metered billing, then I want to be able to pick and choose only the digital cable channels I want for cost per channel. They can definitely do that with today's technology, but refuse too for obvious greed reasons. | |
|
| | | Re: well said by Scree:If they are doing this now and eventually implement metered billing, then I want to be able to pick and choose only the digital cable channels I want for cost per channel. They can definitely do that with today's technology, but refuse too for obvious greed reasons. I always get a kick out of this one when I see it. "they can let me order ala carte TV but won't because of greed."
Honestly... you may be a bit right, but the finger pointing at who's the greedy one would be wrong. Right now MSO's can negotiate rates in the sub- $1 per house range with the content providers because of the number of customers they have. Ya, you may not watch all those channels, but Content companies can go to their advertisers and say XYZ channel reaches ###### numbers of households so I can charge you this to advertise on me. If cable companies didn't bulk all those channels and couldn't "guarentee" to the Content provider X numbers of homes getting the channel, then Content couldn't charge advertisers as much to advertise with them.... the MSO's wouldn't have the bulk power to negotiate low rates, and Content would have a DAMNED good reason to raise what they charge per customer to the MSO to make up for the lost advertising revenue.
The Result? Instead of the MSO getting XYZ channel for only $0.25 per customer from the content provider, They'd be charged $10.00 per subscriber.
There's also the side effect that it would be harder to new channels to launch, because they couldn't make themselves super-attractive to the MSO (Say, A penny a customer) in order to raise their availability to in turn attract the advertisers.....so overall channel available could return back towards the 90's level of available programming. lol... What good is room for 100 HD channels when there are only 15 HD networks out there?
Obviously.. numbers are made up, but the theories behind them remain valid none-the-less. | |
|
| | | | Re: well said by miscDude :
Ya, you may not watch all those channels, but Content companies can go to their advertisers and say XYZ channel reaches ###### numbers of households so I can charge you this to advertise on me. If cable companies didn't bulk all those channels and couldn't "guarentee" to the Content provider X numbers of homes getting the channel, then Content couldn't charge advertisers as much to advertise with them.... the MSO's wouldn't have the bulk power to negotiate low rates, and Content would have a DAMNED good reason to raise what they charge per customer to the MSO to make up for the lost advertising revenue. How stupid do you think the advertisers are, anyways? Do you REALLY believe that "Black Entertaiment TV" advertisers don't already factor in that cable subscribers in upper-class white neighbourhoods aren't going to be watching? Or that MTV advertisers targetting teenagers think that grammas that watch Lawrence Welk re-reuns will tune in to MTV?
said by miscDude :
The Result? Instead of the MSO getting XYZ channel for only $0.25 per customer from the content provider, They'd be charged $10.00 per subscriber. Ask an advertiser about "demographics" if you don't believe me. If a content provider can go to an advertiser and say that it has X number of viewers that willingly pay to watch, they can charge higher numbers than a content provider that says that they're delivered mostly to the wrong neighbourhoods with the wrong demographic for your product. | |
|
|
2 edits | said by Scree:If they are doing this now and eventually implement metered billing, then I want to be able to pick and choose only the digital cable channels I want for cost per channel. They can definitely do that with today's technology, but refuse too for obvious greed reasons. The main problem is that content providers bundle channels. Disney is probably the worst offender by bundling cartoon channels with ESPN and lifetime and ABC affiliates etc.. on and on. That is, if you don't carry ESPN.. the most expensive channel with the highest carriage fees, they won't give you ABC and Disney channel etc.. Its basically extortion and its wrong and it should not be allowed. Each channel should be negotiated on its own, based on its viewership and merit. But that's not what happens and its why so much of the content stinks and is crap. I think the worst thing is the majority of viewers are paying for the expensive sports channels and they don't use them. But have you noticed that its almost impossible to sub to any tier that does not have a bunch of them? Unless you go down to an extremely limited tier with hardly nothing you are always going to pay the heavy sports carriage tax. Channel bundling/extortion and companies like Disney need regulation badly on these matters.
A while back I remember some cable companies challenged Disney and they pulled ABC from some of their Disney owned affiliates. Dish network lost lifetime for awhile trying to not cave into Disney's pushing a third lifetime channel. Their was lifetime, LMN, and a new one I forget which one now. But basically Dish had paid money to be able to negotiate for lifetime on its own. So what happened is Disney finally caved in and Dish pulled LMN off and just put lifetime back in the middle tier. They just recently put LMN back in. This is rare however. Usually Disney gets what they want and can usually extort the carriage they demand. I don't think many people understand how evil Disney really is. I don't mind they make money. But they generally find ways to overcharge for every service and product they offer.
If you don't believe that a content provider would go as far as pulling a major network like ABC then read here: »findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m···61954562
Pulling a major network SHOULD be illegal since that can limit local access to news etc.. its total and complete BS. Funny how people paint a fantasy land image of Disney.. they're freaking evil and have benefited from many of the corporatist policy making in Washington in the last 20 years. Personally, I think allot needs to be regulated as far as public airways/internet. Too much of this is being formed by huge multinationals that are going to reduce creativity and growth in these technologies. I think most can agree that all the forced channel bundling has taken all the competition out of producing good content.. all reality crap etc... now. They control everything so they don't have to put up risk captital like they used to.. Put out cheap reality shows and we all pay even more for it with higher carriages. Internet will be controlled much in the same way.. pay more for less. They don't want to upgrade infrastructure. | |
|
Jaghar
join:2001-01-30
Painesville, OH | I Predict.... I predict that there will be Comcast partnerships.
In order for broadband based business to obtain and retain customers on the Comcast network, they will contract (paying a fee of course) with Comcast to exempt the broadband use from the cap. A sponsership for customers.
Since Comcast can't charge those companies for transmitting across it's own network, this will enable them to "go around" and use the loophole to charge those companies anyway.
--
We will always be much more human than we wish to be. | |
|
| | | Re: I Predict.... I personally think 250gb is more than enough, man some people are such knobs sometimes and have nothing better to do than download movies and games. Last I checked I had a life, I have a family and kids that need my attentions, not streaming videos. If you need the bandwidth for other purposes then look at something more than a residential service if 250gb is not good enough. Go cry me a river and let the flames start! | |
|
| | Jaghar
join:2001-01-30
Painesville, OH | Re: I Predict.... said by averagejoe :
I personally think 250gb is more than enough, man some people are such knobs sometimes and have nothing better to do than download movies and games. Last I checked I had a life, I have a family and kids that need my attentions, not streaming videos. If you need the bandwidth for other purposes then look at something more than a residential service if 250gb is not good enough. Go cry me a river and let the flames start!
I agree that Comcast should probably (for now) be able to sell it's product in the manner it choose.
But this has nothing to do with how much is too much, and how much is just right. It has everything to do with making a buck.
It certainly has nothing to do with some moral ground as you imply. But I do ready some sarcasm between the lines don't I?
--
We will always be much more human than we wish to be. | |
|
| | | Banwidth & congestion ISPs want to say the usable bandwith is reaching it's maximum.
Truth is ISPs are barely touching 50% of their available bandwith TWC for example hasn't even breached 35%.
in short this is just a way to make more money and screw us out of our own internet. | |
|
|
|
Streaming movies?
