  funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to markofmayhem Re: Cry...
said by markofmayhem :As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly. You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
  Rob In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by funchords :said by markofmayhem :As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly. You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering. Which will only hurt the consumer, not help them. |
|
 iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to funchords Yaknow, "above DSL speeds" could mean an *increase* in connectin speeds for those throttled . I mean, Qwest has 20 Mbps DSL and 5 Mbps in most places, Windstream has 12 Mbps DSL...I have 8 Mbps Comcast w\PowerBoost so it all depends on how you interpret "above DSL speeds"  |
|
 ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by iansltx :Yaknow, "above DSL speeds" could mean an *increase* in connectin speeds for those throttled  . I mean, Qwest has 20 Mbps DSL and 5 Mbps in most places, Windstream has 12 Mbps DSL...I have 8 Mbps Comcast w\PowerBoost so it all depends on how you interpret "above DSL speeds" HaHaHa! They mean the new FCC definition of "broadband" speed (768Kbps), I'm sure...  |
|
  Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
4 edits | reply to funchords said by funchords :said by markofmayhem :As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly. You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering. And you do realize that 250 gigs would be less than the 300 to 400 gigs that was previously allowed until the hogs decided even that wasn't enough and decided to try to turn what was always meant to be a residential service at a residential price into something resembling their own private dedicated network that otherwise someone would have to pay thousands for each month.
Nice gig I guess to want a thousand dollar a month connection for 42 bucks but that's just not how it works.
As for honesty Rob..I also think honesty comes in many flavors...such as posting threads and then having it ultimately discovered by a poster that you were suing the company and seeking support for class action status. That certainly put a different spin and light on your posts entirely IMHO with that "unannounced" disclosure. |
|
  ptrowski Got Helix? Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT clubs:
·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| said by Rick :said by funchords :said by markofmayhem :As comcast is my only broadband option for internet, the future cap and throttle announcement saddens me greatly. You do realize that P2P interference and a bandwidth cap already are there, they just were unannounced. Now Comcast will have to be honest about what it is offering. And you do realize that 250 gigs would be less than the 300 to 400 gigs that was previously allowed until the hogs decided even that wasn't enough and decided to try to turn what was always meant to be a residential service at a residential price into something resembling their own private dedicated network that otherwise someone would have to pay thousands for each month. Nice gig I guess to want a thousand dollar a month connection for 42 bucks but that's just not how it works. As for honesty Rob..I also think honesty comes in many flavors...such as posting threads and then having it ultimately discovered by a poster that you were suing the company and seeking support for class action status. That certainly put a different spin and light on your posts entirely IMHO with that "unannounced" lack of disclosure. Why? He found something that was not being disclosed, they blatantly lied about it, and are being sued. Sounds about right to me. |
|
  Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
1 edit | said by ptrowski :Why? He found something that was not being disclosed, they blatantly lied about it, and are being sued. Sounds about right to me. Hmm..seems like you're missing a few steps...not to mention the entire point of my comment.
You might want to educate yourself about what happened here in this thread..starting first with the "woe is me..comcast is attacking poor little old me"....which ultimately led up to the discovery on page 3 of the thread by TKJunkmail that perhaps the reason they had something to say about him was because of his undisclosed lawsuit seeking class action ..Ie: support from the members of the board he apparently hoped would be joining in on the suit.
»Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized
It's particularly interesting to note the date of the suit and compare that to the date of the first post in the thread and then see if that "undisclosure" would have put a different light on things he had to say.
I sure think it would have.
In any event...back on topic...personally I hope they do institute caps. It's time for the high consumption users to pay their share and stop having everyone else subsidize this outrageous behavior and enough..is never enough..usage. |
|
  Corehhi
join:2002-01-28 Bluffton, SC | reply to Rick Re: Cry...
Good point. Some of these people have gone nuts with bandwidth.
If running business volume you should pay a business rate. |
|
 axus
join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Rick They already instituted caps, remember the letters they send telling you to use [undefined] less bandwidth or be cutoff?
I agree that 250GB is reasonable, it works out to 4 people each using 2GB per day, which can be expected from "high speed internet". It's the bullshit 50GB caps that get people upset. If Comcast stops forging packets and advertising unlimited while setting secret limits, we can have a better relationship with them. |
|
  ptrowski Got Helix? Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT clubs:
·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| reply to Rick said by Rick :said by ptrowski :Why? He found something that was not being disclosed, they blatantly lied about it, and are being sued. Sounds about right to me. Hmm..seems like you're missing a few steps...not to mention the entire point of my comment. You might want to educate yourself about what happened here in this thread..starting first with the "woe is me..comcast is attacking poor little old me"....which ultimately led up to the "revelation" that perhaps the reason they had something to say about him was because of his undisclosed lawsuit seeking class action ..Ie: support from the members of the board he apparently hoped would be joining in on the suit. » Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation ScrutinizedIn any event...back on topic...personally I hope they do institute caps. It's time for the high consumption users to pay their share and stop having everyone else subsidize this outrageous behavior and enough..is never enough..usage. I didn't miss a few steps, and am well aware of that thread. I don't see how that has anything to do with the FCC has now posted the order. Robb used the information he found out to start a lawsuit. I don't think he ever said that he wasn't suing them. As a matter of fact it was on a website. -- "A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
  Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
| I think it all has plenty to do with each other.
Isp's including comcast have tried to police their networks in such a way the last few years to be as reasonable as possible IMHO. Instead of putting fixed numbers on bandwidth, they've attempted to be as flexible as possible and to deal with those abusing the networks with cautions to tone down their usage.
I've always thought that was a great way to operate and really resembled in a way the spirit of the internet itself in letting it be as free and open as possible. In particular, I think that comcast has been one of the most generous ones of all. I have yet to EVER see a post where anyone ever had a problem unless they hit the 300 to 400 gig amounts PER MONTH. And, even that was following a warning letter.
It's really too bad that some couldn't appreciate that and how generous it was. Instead..they criticized and criticized some more.
And now..I think they're going to reap what they've sown. Not only with comcast..but across the whole ISP world.
Some people have simply treated this 42 dollar a month service as if they paid 2 thousand a month for it. Their expectations and demands have been nothing short of outrageous. It's a residential service..not a private dedicated line for all their own use.
Maybe now they'll start to get a clue.
But..then again..maybe it will take the first big bill instead. -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
  ptrowski Got Helix? Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT clubs:
·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| said by Rick :I think it all has plenty to do with each other. Isp's including comcast have tried to police their networks in such a way the last few years to be as reasonable as possible IMHO. Instead of putting fixed numbers on bandwidth, they've attempted to be as flexible as possible and to deal with those abusing the networks with cautions to tone down their usage. I've always thought that was a great way to operate and really resembled in a way the spirit of the internet itself in letting it be as free and open as possible. In particular, I think that comcast has been one of the most generous ones of all. I have yet to EVER see a post where anyone ever had a problem unless they hit the 300 to 400 gig amounts PER MONTH. And, even that was following a warning letter. It's really too bad that some couldn't appreciate that and how generous it was. Instead..they criticized and criticized some more. And now..I think they're going to reap what they've sown. Not only with comcast..but across the whole ISP world. Some people have simply treated this 42 dollar a month service as if they paid 2 thousand a month for it. Their expectations and demands have been nothing short of outrageous. It's a residential service..not a private dedicated line for all their own use. Maybe now they'll start to get a clue. But..then again..maybe it will take the first big bill instead. So, you are for the caps to limit the bandwidth hogs, and the stated caps are now most likely a direct result of what Rob found. So I would imagine you would be one of Rob's #1 fans as he has now helped limit the bandwidth hogs you have been so vocal about.... -- "A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
  KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Rick Rick, you can't have a contract without the people knowing what it is they are supposed to be doing or adhering to.
Let's face it, the Caps have always been there, but Comcast didn't want to take the marketing flap for admitting it.
Some people did get away with 300+ GB, but didn't get hit. Others got hit at lower amounts.... it all depends on how much capacity they had.
Declaring it is much fairer to all. -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
  funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to Rick said by Rick :As for honesty Rob..I also think honesty comes in many flavors...such as posting threads and then having it ultimately discovered by a poster that you were suing the company and seeking support for class action status. That certainly put a different spin and light on your posts entirely IMHO with that "unannounced" disclosure. So, Rick, I'm dishonest because I posted a thread and didn't disclose that I was suing?
How so?
Rick, I've been saying the same thing for over a year prior to the suit -- that Comcast ought to sell its service honestly and disclose things like speeds, caps, and devices that it uses that interfere.
Despite my complaints, Comcast didn't change its practices. I sued. That's a civilized process that responsible people in disagreement must do. (The alternative, resorting to violence, is unacceptable.)
Suing is a public act. It's pretty hard to keep a suit a secret. Why would I try?
And I don't make my living suing people. I make my living as a technologist, and I adhere to codes of ethics that require my honesty and objectivity.
And finally, as to the topic you mention, the sequence of events goes something like this...
•I started the ball rolling on the suit some time before, but it had not been filed to my knowledge and I wasn't certain when it would be. •Then I learned from one terse web report on 7/22 that it was finally filed, but I wasn't sure why that lonely report was out there since I didn't hear from anyone else. •I started the thread that you're talking about on 7/23. •Then TK picked up about it and posted it and you started giving me hell. •Then I heard from our lawyers who had just got the stamped copy back from the court about a week later 7/25 or so. Even if I had known, I'm not sure I would have disclosed it, because it doesn't really make a difference (it was off-topic to the issue), but if I had disclosed it, I wouldn't have disclosed it until I had heard from the lawyers.
Edit: corrected order, turns out my first clue was the day before I posted that thread.
-- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
  Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
| reply to ptrowski I have never been in favor of caps. Instead, I have often written in the Comcast and other forums about people trying to be reasonable and responsible instead. If I was someone who wanted to consume 400 gigs of bandwidth per month, I simply wouldn't expect it from a 42 dollars a month residential isp service. At the very least..I'd upgrade to a business class type of service and perhaps split my usage across a dsl and cable connection. In short..I'd respect both my neighbors and the company I'm getting service from.
Some simply haven't done that. They've treated this like an all you can eat 6.99 chinese buffet that they go in and attach a chain to their pickup truck with and drag it home. And do it under the guise of "they said it was all I can eat".
This is what I mean about being reasonable and responsible.
As for Rob and his suit..that's up to him if he feels wronged. Personally I'd have to severely question however how wronged someone could be obviously using the connection as much as he did..at the price he paid for it. I saw in the news he was asked how much he felt he was due and his response was "the answer was tremendously difficult". To me..the answer seems pretty simple. Zero.
But...that's really here nor there. This is America..and if a person would like to waste their time on a frivolous suit..feel free to I guess. My point wasn't that..it was the "undisclosure" in response to his own post above where he talks about Comcast doing that.
Did he contribute to what is occurring with caps now? Probably. In some ways...I think the answer is yes. But it's far from being just him. It's collectively "they"..who I feel never seemed to appreciate what they had for the price they had it.
Isp's really are going to have no choice but to cap if reasonable network management practices..ie: throttling..aren't allowed.
And, I don't think it's going to hurt me or the average user at all..unless the numbers get so low as to be in the range Time Warner is talking about. Being a former RR customer..I certainly hope that doesn't come to pass. But I think who they can thank for it is the ones who simply could never get enough.
They are driving the industry to this. -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
  funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by Rick :As for Rob and his suit..that's up to him if he feels wronged. Personally I'd have to severely question however how wronged someone could be obviously using the connection as much as he did..at the price he paid for it. Rick, my average use falls around 150 GB a month, and I'm also hyper conscience about ensuring that any use that I'm about to do and I won't contribute to the neighborhood's congestion.
During tests with Seth Shoen at the EFF, even when I was transferring at data rates limited to 1 KB/s, I was receiving the RSTs. Comcast was keeping me from accessing bandwidth that I paid for.
Quit throwing bombs at me. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
  Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
| reply to funchords said by funchords :So, Rick, I'm dishonest because I posted a thread and didn't disclose that I was suing? I didn't say you were being dishonest. I said it was undisclosed for the purpose of that thread and this website..which it was. People can form their own opinions from there..or not if they don't want to.
I think that both I and others in that thread were somewhat taken aback by the non disclosure and it did put your opening post in a very different light.
Certainly, as you say the issue was ongoing long before that thread however and so that should certainly be weighed in as well.
For my part..personally I think your suit is completely without merit and ranks with the kinds of things that are wrong with this countries legal system. Why? Because of the price paid for the service. And what it was..and was intended to be. My critique isn't just directed at you when I say too many people expect thousands of dollars worth a service per month for 42 bucks. And it's off the backs of everyone else that they get it.
Comcast has the right to reasonable network management and doesn't have to open their doors to nonstop 24/7 p2p users. Comcast hasn't capped people at 5 gigs or 20 gigs or 100gigs. It's been at 300 to 400 gigs for christs sake. It is outrageous what people expect for 42 dollars per month and to criticize it..critique it to death..and sue on top of it is just flat out wrong IMO.
I and MANY others use our connections a LOT! And have ZERO problems with it. Our voices have been silent for too long about this. What REASONABLE people want is for our connections to be fast..and service to be good and consistent. I don't want my 24/7 bandwidth hogging neighbor to take down my and others connections. Comcast has the RIGHT..and OBLIGATION..to PROTECT US.
Again..to be clear...I'm not saying you're dishonest. You obviously feel strongly about your point..enough so to feel it's right to sue them.
Don't object however to other peoples points who don't feel that way. Because there are many very happy..very satisfied users as well.
And it's time we had something to say about this. -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
  funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | And for the record, I agree with all of these things --
•Comcast has the right to reasonable network management •Comcast hasn't capped people at 5 gigs or 20 gigs or 100gigs. It's been at 300 to 400 gigs for christs sake. •What REASONABLE people want is for our connections to be fast..and service to be good and consistent. •I don't want my 24/7 bandwidth hogging neighbor to take down my and others connections. Comcast has the RIGHT..and OBLIGATION..to PROTECT US.
Comcast doesn't have the right to prohibit P2P users as a category, but does have the right to ensure that users don't unduly interfere with other users. And you know I have zero tolerance for that. "Cut 'em off!"
If you don't want to have users that are simply heavy users of bandwidth (that don't interfere), then don't offer services to them. But if you do business with them, you are obligated (ethically, morally, legally?) to serve them and deliver the product that you described when they laid the money down. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
  Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
| And does your local chinese buffet owe you "all you can eat" for a week, month or year for 6.99 simply because you laid your money down (and they didn't say in their tagline..all you can eat HERE in one sitting)?
I think it's the same thing. It's about being reasonable in ones expectations.
You paid what for your service..42.95? You say here you consumed over 120 gigs a month of bandwidth.
Rob..tell us. If that was a dedicated line...how much would you have paid? You say you're a professional in this industry..you should know or have a pretty good idea.
Did you get your 42.95's worth in that 125 gigs of data you consumed compared to what it cost the provider?
You see Rob..that is where I think you lose the argument completely. And, not just you..but all those consuming mega amounts of bandwidth. You're simply not being reasonable and are spinning words and meanings to fit your needs.
How much would a T1 cost you? 500 a month? And this was at what..4 times those speeds? Does that make your 125 gigs worth maybe 1600.00 a month..that you paid 43 dollars for?
Perhaps someone can chime in who does buy bandwidth like this because I don't know how much it would cost.
I sure know it's a lot more than 43 bucks though.
Rob..with all due respect I see your suit as being like you hooked up your chain to that buffet table.dragged it home..fed your family and friends..and now want them to replenish it again for you.
And I don't think that's going to fly very well in court.
But..if you feel wronged..then so be it. This is America.the land of the free...and home of the lawsuits.
Good night. -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|