said by nice one :

Getting the bandwidth hogs off the systems so that other people can have normal use is the right thing for Comcast to do.

said by nice one :

You don't have proof that bandwidth hogs don't affect other nearby users.

said by Sturm :

You do not have proof that it does, either. Presumption of innocence then should be the principle.

said by nice guy :

That's only true in US criminal system, but there's no such principle in logic.

said by Sturm :

You do not have proof that it does, either.

said by Sturm :

It is a widely used principle.

said by Cabal :

A year ago they were disconnecting people for 250 GB use, and now we never see posts with less than 400 GB (more often 1/2 or full terabyte). If they're almost doubling it every year, that's outpacing backbone growth by a significant margin, not too shabby.

said by Sturm :

That is a big if and does not make this practice less wrong.

said by nice one :

Getting the bandwidth hogs off the systems so that other people can have normal use is the right thing for Comcast to do.

said by funchords :

"Read your e-mail and send Instant Messages at Blazing Speeds!" (For everything else, try FIOS...)

said by nice one :

As far as whether Comcast should publicly reveal the limits, the pros and cons have been discussed ad infinitum in this thread. I like the idea of Comcast setting the limit and charging for overage. But we got plenty of whiners complaining about that.

said by funchords :

Sturm, that's interesting.

I think it does make the practice less wrong. Disclosure of the limits makes the limits less wrong. Increasing the limits as time goes on keeps the Internet growing and innovative and is likewise less wrong.

Let me know if you disagree, maybe you see something that I don't.

said by Sturm :

Treason is a matter of dates.

said by Sturm :

I get disconnected for usage that soon is going to be acceptable. I get the whole lecture from the CC "abuse" dept PLUS a group from this board. When next year the 500 GB / mo usage will be fine, what changed ? Nothing, except that the CC backbone finally caught up with demand. So it was not my usage that was "abusive" but the network hardware that was inadequate and the policy that tries to justify that. I do not have a problem with caps as long as they are clearly defined, I do not have issues with paying extra for my usage, I do have an issue with the 1 year disconnection, the misleadingly defined caps and ESPECIALYY being called an abuser when I am a customer in good standing.

Everything you said here was perfectly reasonable. My question had to do with a matter of degrees of "wrong"-ness. I think you've answered it well enough. I'm with you, buddy!