'Cable Will Win the Bandwidth Wars' > I was recently...

reply to hottboiinnc

Re: I was recently...

Why should Comcast, TWC and Cox or any other cable company consider FTTP? Why spend money on something you don't need to? There is very little competition in 99.9% of all cable markets combined. The need to upgrade something they just did a few years ago is crazy. Fiber maybe the way of the future but is not right now. Their network can be upgraded as needed. DOCSIS was built that way and thats the reason fiber is so far out in the field. They have the upper hand no matter what.

I wouldn't say they have the upper hand, particularly with a network where they have to terminate customers. But they're in business to make money, and they're doing very well as is. Though their network can be upgraded as needed, they don't upgrade based on consumer needs, they upgrade based on what will impact their revenue.

Right now, they can terminate customers with impunity, thereby eliminating the need to upgrade.

Not all of them terminate. You can't say "they" and refer to Comcast. "they" all cable companies. But if you were in the same boat as them with someone taking gigs or terabytes from you each month and costing you more in data transport to the Internet wouldn't you want them off your network as well? They have a bill to pay to someone else weather it be to a C/LEC or in co-location or a peering partner someone is paying someone. I personally would get rid of that customer as well.

But Comcast has only admitted they will get rid of the customer. And like i said before there is no real proof that someone has been disconnected just a bunch of letters going around the internet and a few news stories and a spokesperson from Comcast admitted they do reserve the right to do it. Many WISPs reserve to do the same thing but you don't hear anyone talking negative about them. Just Comcast.

Comcast has publicly admitted to terminating people, not just that they have the right to. I don't think I'd ever treat people in such a heavy-handed way. Cox and others have imposed limits without taking such draconian measures.

But the bottom line is: Telcos, even on their ancient rickety copper networks, have enough capacity to serve all their user's needs, even heavy users. Cable companies throttle or terminate, which makes their claim of having enough capacity pretty specious.

Look at who owns a great deal of all the actual fiber in this country- The Telcos. ATT isn't back together for a reason. VZ didnt buy UUNet/MCI for no reason. Its all the backbone bandwidth they have.

But Telcos have the same problem. They just don't show it. They over sell just as much as a cable company. Look at VZ they over sell so much at times they actually have to stop taking orders because their either out of bandwidth or they over sold their DSLAMs so much they have to order new ones. They also don't have enough capacity to serve customers. if they did VZ a few years ago wouldn't have been dropping people's speeds saying that they moved farther from the CO. Also Telco's wouldnt prequal you for one thing and then give you another speed saying all of a sudden that "you're lines do not support this" They run out of bandwidth at some point to. Its just not going to appear as they add customers. Each customer does not get their own T1 or greater to the Internet.

So in other words you'd rather have a customer paying you $50 per month for Internet and your bill be in the thousands just because you don't think that it would be right to disconnect them. I think its fair to disconnect them. It's bad for business to keep them. Why should Comcast have to pay the price?

Yes, telcos are faced with the same situation, but they choose to deal with it by managing the network, not by terminating/throttling customers.

It's terribly hard to find the cableco claims credible when out of one side of their mouth they say "we have ample bandwidth", while out of the other side of their mouth they say "we'll terminate/throttle you if you consume lots of bandwidth". Either they have ample bandwidth or they don't - it can't be both.

And since we know cableco's terminate/throttle, it's easy to conclude that they're just blowing a lot of hot air when they say they've got ample bandwith. The conclusion is the same, no matter how many different ways you try to say it. But feel free to try to keep trying.

They do have ample bandwidth in the actual network between the computer and the headend. They never said where they have the ample bandwidth at.

Comcast has been kicking off people left and right and this is NOT an isolated incident. I happen to been one of those subscribers like Frank and many others out there that was booted off of their network for a fuzzy policy that was cleverly written to give Comcast the upper hand and to lie and not be honest that their service is limited and cannot handle the increased amount of traffic and users on their network.

Instead of a letter, I (like so many others) was threatened to being terminated by a phone call and was never once offered a chance to either upgrade to higher grade commercial account or more bandwidth service. Frank, James, I and many others are speaking out on this issue.

reply to hottboiinnc
Seems a bit disingenuous. If bandwidth is plentiful within Comcast's system, but not available to serve customers when they need it, what's the point?

Bandwidth is NOT plentiful in Comcast's service. It's a lie and they know it.

Yeah, but they'll never admit it. I admire you, CLEVELTECH for your tenacity in shining some light on Comcast's treatment of heavy users. It's the single biggest reason (though there are lots) why I hope to never ever be a Comcast HSI customer again. How many other companies can get away with calling their customers "hogs" and "abusers"?

Years ago, Comcast tried similar harsh treatment of people who use VPN - they tried to assess a $50/mo surcharge, as if sending data using the VPN protocol somehow placed a heavier burden on the network than sending data using other protocols.

I truly feel sorry for those who have no alternative. I hope things work out for you.

hi JTRockville
My whole issue with this Comcast fuzzy AUP is that if you look at it closely, it's written VERY cleverly in such a way that it gives them an upper hand in making the rules up as they go along but it also opens them up to getting sued and eventually it will happen as It's only a matter of time. And for the record, the Comcast abuse rep NEVER even dared to call me a "hog" or "abuser". The name calling, the accusations, and the personal attacks I got on this site and on my YOU TUBE video page by those that post regularly on here. More on that in a bit.
He was actually rather professional that is until I questioned him as to "what was the bandwidth limit" which he argued that there was none AND then I questioned him "then why am I receiving this phone call" then the conversation turned quite ugly between him and I where he became rather condescending and me being the paying customer I got very angry because I was being threatened with no viable solution.

Now what really floored me was the level of attacks I (and several former subscribers) received from those that post on here and while I can understand that some are employed by Comcast, I can't understand the attacks by the others that aren't. That baffles me.
One guy had the balls enough to say to me. "Bottom line is you broke the rules and Comcast reserves the right to throw off abusers off their network when people like you hog it down".
Now here's my question I asked that really infuriated me to no end was, "OK what is acceptable usage in your eyes?" to everyone of those that attacked me. While I have spoken to a few guys that are in the technical field (who were also very nice, professional and understanding) and they offered explanations to how a network infrastructure works (DSL vs Cable) NOT one person could answer (or was not willing to answer) that question. NOT ONE. In fact that same guy tried to say that it changes by the number of subscribers on the node which I think is bullshit because if that node serves an area, then Comcast knows how many subscribers that node serves (for that area) thereby they know approximately how many users are on that network at any given time. I do not believe that they can't give an estimate of the limit (which there is one and they know it).
Frank is fighting to get another ISP into his town to compete with Comcast and it looks like his town will get it. He's another subscriber that also like me was thrown off the network and was never given a clear idea of the limit and was lied to. And he's not the only one. Every single day I get contacted by another former subscriber. It's the same story, just a different person. I'm not going to give up nor be silenced on this issue. There are many subscribers out there that are NOT aware that Comcast is doing this and I'm making it known so that they will question and send complaints to the government and launch an investigation against them. People have the right to know and you know the saying : once it's out there the news can spread like wildfire.
And Comcast is a company that hates publicity of any kind. Now why is that?
I had Cox Communications for 7 years when I lived in RI and NEVER had a problem with them. They clearly say that their network has limits and has a cap. So do other ISPs. Comcast is the only one that lies and says they don't.
The one thing I hate is to be lied to and I hate liars. After this lovely little experience with this company, I patiently wait for the day when CEO Brian Roberts and his big-wig lawyers are facing ever-growing angry former subscribers in a courtroom. In America, there are laws to prevent them from just making crap up on the fly and expecting customers to live by them.
Someday they will sit in front of a Federal Judge and their one sided contract with undisclosed terms will disappear... along with their customers. We'll see who the cowards really are.