Comcast XFINITY → Comcast Bandwidth Abuse/Limits - Discuss here only

said by Cabal:

All that asking for hard caps will do is yield ridiculously low caps for everyone, like Charter's 40 GB per month.

said by fonzbear2000:

a solution to this would be for comcast to have really high monthly bandwidth limits-300-400GB/month should be more than enough for anyone

said by Rick5:

IMHO, Comcast should talk about nothing and just keep on doing what they're doing.

Those asking for fixed bandwidth caps seem not to understand the concept of what this service is all about. Agreed, and they won't help anyone (including the troll who is pushing for them).

There is NO WAY in the world any isp could allocate to EACH user 300 gigs per month of bandwidth for anywhere near this price. Agreed. However, to the customer who doesn't know anything about Internet delivered over CATV wires, Comcast appears to offer exactly that!

Just the same way there is NO WAY in the world they could allocate a dedicated pipe to each user for the kinds of speeds we receive. We agree here, too!

If you or I were to go out and buy this ourselves for strictly our own use, we'd probably be paying thousands per month for it. Yep.

Think about it this way. What's a T1 cost? 300~400.00 per month now? And that's just for a 1500k connection. Well, you're also paying for the relative rarity and a maintenance charge for the T1. The bandwidth isn't the driving factor. But, other than that finer point, we definitely agree.

The way that this whole concept works for all is because of the shared nature of it. Both in terms of speeds and bandwidth we consume. You're preachin' to the choir! I totally agree. So why doesn't Comcast apparently want their consumers to know about this? (Be careful not to step in that pile of marketing over there...)

The poster above is absolutely right. If Comcast or any isp was to say to us that this is YOUR bandwidth you can consume..and no one elses..they'd probably have to be limiting us to 40gigs or maybe even less per month. Sure, I agree.

It's the same thing with powerboost. If they said this is YOUR 20Mb speeds..and no one elses..our bills would have to be many times what they are each month. Naturally!

You and I get these speeds because it's available, and not being used at the time. Really, the concept is a great one.
If they're paying for it anyway..and it's just sitting there unused..give it to someone. Agreed! You're making my points, but you're responding as if you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong!

Personally, I think that comcast is VERY liberal when it comes to how much they allow a person to consume each month in terms of bandwidth.
Do you know how much 300 gigs per month is?
Many people won't use that kind of bandwidth in a year or two...or maybe even more..never mind a months time. And I must have said 10 times in the past 10 days that I think that Comcast has been a liberal ISP. One of those posts was a direct reply to you, since I know you've recently become a Comcast customer.

But, some people do, and they're the ones who start to affect this whole system of shared resources for everyone.
And, rightfully so..Comcast has to clamp down on them. Which I also recommended in the very post that you're responding to -- so we agree.

We've all seen the posts here from those who are getting the warnings. And personally, I think they're very few and far between, compared to how many people post here.
I think that in and of itself says how few people this impacts.
Reports have the number at 1% of their users..and that seems right to me, judging by the posts. I'll buy that.

Are we all supposed to subsidize this small group of people who want to use this much? No. That's not fair to the rest of us IMO. And nothing in my post suggested that we subsidize him, in fact, I suggested that Comcast forcefully limit his connection if he doesn't comply.

I don't deny you the right to do what you want to do..but do suggest that if you're going to do it..you'd be best served in making some alternate plans as well.
You can have a comcast connection..and a dsl connection if it's available..and split your usage among the two.
Or...subscribe to a business tier with Comcast and pay a higher price. To me, that's the fair way that this should be approached. Natually, if I can't get enough bandwidth from one connection, I can probably get more from another source. We're still in violent agreement here, Rick.

Also to me, you're NOT bandwidth HOGS. You're people who want to use this service more than it's intended.
And, who can impact the rest of us in doing so. Yes -- exactly. I know that, you know that. We're not the ones that are the problem, because we understand. As I said, "The REAL problem here is that the customer thinks he is subscribing to service that comes with 6000 kbps / 384 kbps bandwidth -- and then the customer gets spanked for using it."

Sorry, but that's just not fair to the other 99% of us who get to listen to you complain. True, it's not fair -- but don't take it out on "us." We are simply using the service without doing anything abusive like uncapping our modems or opening our own public Wi-Fi hotspot. This service tier was offered to us and we bought it. Nobody told us anything about it being shared or that there were bandwidth limits with the service. (I'm obviously speaking as the uneducated version of "us" in this case.) If you think "it's not fair," then tell Comcast it's not fair! They created this problem by setting our expectations higher than their system can deliver!

And, to comcast..I say..keep on doing what you're doing.
Please. To which I sarcastically (but in good spirits) add: ...because it's working so well!

said by pflog:

If you, as a viewing user, make an assumption that if the speed is X, you can download 30*24*60*60*X in a month without repercussion, you're doing just that - making an assumption.

said by hobgoblin:

Another bad analogy.

I have made this point before. You have to be in the Gym to be able to use it! I don't think there would be any problem if the service was being used...IE the person was sitting in front of the computer. In almost all cases they are not. They have everything queued up and are in bed or at school!

said by funchords:

So you shouldn't be able to download e-mail into Outlook Express or get OS updates from Microsoft unless you're warming the seat in front of your computer? May I synchronize my clock using NTP or request a DHCP renewal while I'm walking the dog?

said by Wayne99021:

reply to dogcacher

quit bitching about what isn't and accept what is.

said by AnotherGuy :

All I can do is be sure I am not adversely affecting my node (by throttling it back), and speculate on what is "reasonable and prudent". I can transfer quite a bit of data, while throttled back, and no one on my node will see any increased latency.

Can anyone tell me at what point I should stop using the connection?

said by Wayne99021:

There is a good article in the PC World Oct 2007 issue.
Companies to customers: your fired.
Just a couple from that article.
Sprint Nextel terminated 1200 customers for excessive service calls
AT&T has kicked off cell phone users who roam or use data services too frequently.
Now these are not too much bandwidth usage issue, but it does show what companies are doing now.
Verizon EvDO high speed wireless data services terminates people if there usage is regularly 5 gig or more per month.
Verizon only does this if their warnings to the customer are ignored. Does that sound familiar to the people who got the letter from Comcast.
Verizon has also cancelled the accounts of callers who are "extremely abusive" to customer service representatives.
So Comcast is not the only company dumping customers.
This appears to be the way things are going to be from now on so quit bitching about what isn't and accept what is.

said by mike34:

That is about as lame as it gets. Consume 500 GB checking mail, getting updates, synchronizing clocks and renewing DHCP?

Uh huh, get real.

said by EG:

You don't get it