US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > Should I Be Concerned About Download Cap

reply to dadkins

Re: Should I Be Concerned About Download Cap

reply to jansm38

reply to JTRockville

reply to JTRockville
But you haven't shown that anyone received any abuse warnings or termination for simply audio streaming, which is the point of the original post.

reply to dadkins
You didn't. Ok? The point (which you seem to have missed), is that you haven't made it clear that you're just guessing when you tell people what they should or shouldn't worry about. And no matter what your guess is, it won't hold any weight if someone gets "lettered" by following your advice.

reply to cracker 52
Does anyone use their connection for any one single purpose?

Everything you do with your connection consumes bandwidth, even Vonage. A little here. A little there. It all adds up.

reply to JTRockville
from the looks of your posts you are negtively guessing. why on earth would you come here trying to scare someone from downloading a few radio shows?

reply to JTRockville
It all adds up to what levels for normal users?

reply to JTRockville
My advise is based on what the OP asked. Going by that, what I have stated stands true.
324MB will never be a deciding factor on pushing any limit from Comcast.

If OP is pulling x hundred GB already, common sense dictates that a flag will already be raised... right? 324MB more will not matter.

Op asked:
"My question is: does this type of streaming audio use substantial bandwidth and if he listened to 3 or so games per week lasting maybe 2 1/2 hours each, would that constitute enough download to trigger any reaction from Comcast?"

Answer, no.
324MB in a month's time will not trigger any reaction by Comcast.
Never has.

I still stand by my answer, sorry JT.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply to cracker 52

yep and one should also take advice from ex customers that have an axe to grind with comcast with a grain of salt. and to the original poster hopefully you read thru the bs and your son enjoys his shows with the other millions of customers.

reply to crcole

it's important to keep reading

reply to JTRockville

Re: Should I Be Concerned About Download Cap

reply to JTRockville
Ok, where have I ever stated *ANY* set limit on what constitutes "The Letter"?

My suggestion to you JT, is start at the beginning of this thread again, but read the OP's question this time.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply to JTRockville
Yes, but you are quite presumptuous to suggest that any normal users would have any risk of being terminated for normal usage. Just because the download cap is unknown does not mean a high number of customers are at risk to abuse warnings or termination. Think about it, Comcast has been growing their HSI customer base for the last several years. to about 8 million the last I've seen. Do you really think that a significant amount of customers have been terminated for bandwidth abuse with the growth they've had? Do you really think Comcast wants to reduce its customer base?

Frankly, I don't think Comcast cares at all about their count of customers. They care about revenue. Less customers (less costs) and higher prices (more profit) would suit Comcast (or any corporation) fine, don't you think?

In fact, I recently made that point in the VZ FiOS forum.

you should post there more often .. as for this thread. Give it a rest .. youve talked yourself into a corner.. theyll be something else you can guess and fabricate about tommorow im sure.

reply to crcole
My family of 4 recieves more than 400MB/mo of SPAM in our Comcast in-boxes. I don't think the streaming the OP is asking about is going to get him an abuse letter. However, if his son is also running Bittorrent while listening to the game and consuming 100's of GB/mo then they're hosed.

reply to JTRockville
This thread so far has been an amazing exercise in arguing semantics. I think we seriously need to re-evaluate the point of the discussion, as well as what the actual bottom line is here for the OP, and other "average" Comcast HSI customers.

I think it's calmly unreasonable to claim that occasional 3 hour 22kbps radio use is going to somehow tip the scales of acceptable use. The OP already stated that he doesn't do BT, P2P, or download massive numbers of games, game demos, or the latest updates for CS:S, DOD:S, and CS 1.6 from steam.

We can conclusively say that 324 MB, or even 1 GB of traffic isn't anywhere near unacceptable because of how much of a ludicrously small amount that is. Even occasional use of the Comcast "fan" consumes far more bandwidth than listening to 22kbps of radio 24/7 ever would. That, and, if I remember correctly, some of my own Comcast contacts already affirmed that at least 10 GB is around average for your typical customer. Even though we don't know what the actual value is for any market, or even what some baseline for generally accepted monthly use is, we can pretty much conclude that it isn't something as low as 350 MB because nobody has received a letter for that little traffic. Heck, that's how much I do in a typical day.

Take, for example, the below graph I just generated from my cacti which monitors my m0n0wall 24/7. Gosh, that's a ton of bandwidth used. That means BT, Steam GCF updates and downloads, game demos, pandora.com streaming audio on at least 3 computers, and that isn't 22kbps, and in addition, weekly debian updates, random package installs, photo e-mails to relatives, windows updates, AV definitions updates, .iso linux-live distribution BT activity, and more. Where's my letter?

reply to JTRockville
Quite the contrary. For all ISPs, equipment costs is the biggest component of their cost structure and spending requirements. Consequently, ISPs have every reason to maximize revenue and customer base to generate the all important free cash flow coverage (after capital expenditures) that the investors are looking for. As a matter of fact, investors are leery of the communication distribution industry as a whole because of concerns over telecos and cable companies fighting for market share, resulting in lower margins and ultimately returns on investment. Cutting personnel costs won't generate the desired profitability. But increasing revenue per employee will. That's why they are all pushing the triple play hard to gain market share or to at least maintain it before the high fixed costs eat them up.

The main reason why Verizon has low prices for their FIOS and are focusing on affluent areas is they want to minimize the "dark" or unused fiber, i.e., generating sufficient revenue to at least cover the high capital/start-up costs (depreciation expense) as well as hoping to generate the returns the investors are looking for. But many have concerns that whatever revenue and profits that may be gleaned from FIOS will not be adequate to compensate for shrinking landline revenue and its high margins (very little costs for calling features). Not to mention the fact that cable companies are not going to rollover and play dead to allow Verizon or ATT grab their customers.

Finally, your generalization that "corporations" desire less customers is quite loony and have no rational basis whatsoever. The best path to profitability is top line growth and productivity, not to decrease them. And higher prices haven't prevented Comcast from growing their customer base. And they have every reason to want to continue that growth as reflected in their presentations to investors/industry analysts.