said by funchords:
OVERALL, it's a big huge step in the right direction.
250GB cap sounds like the right number for the beginning of 2007. This amount represents top half percent that got "the call" for hitting the invisicap early last year.
Since the bandwidth appetite grows 140% a year (which is about right), this year's cap probably should be around 350 GB. So Comcast should continue to update that number every 3-6 months or so to avoid throttling progress.
A measurement tool is ALMOST mandatory, but it's extremely difficult!
As for the overage penalty ($15 per 10 GB), this sounds like a weaker part of the plan. It requires tighter, more-accurate metering to administer. If I were Comcast, I'd probably go for something like $25 per 100GB. Just my opinion,
While the cap will need to move up over time, I don't think "chasing" the 99.5th percentile will work to set the number, they already can boot the top .5%, if they choose too.
Users are free to pay more if they want more.
Yes $1.50 is fairly punitive, but those users that exceed that amount aren't really their target market
To say the $1.50 per gig is excessive is quite true as it's not just bandwidth costs, but plant upgrades beyond what the normal tier allows for.
The $25 per 100GB might work in a system where there was no monthly charge, all fees based on usage.
The "granny" type would only pat $25/mo (easily staying below 100G), the mid-level people would end up at $50-75, and at the top end you could buy all you could afford.
It might not be viable with out a base tier, and there would surely be arugments by those that went 10Megs in to the next 100 gigs.