|reply to gate1975mlm |
people do realize how much they use
People know pretty good how much they use. More or less.
Truth be told, Comcast does get it wrong sometimes. This is a well-known phenomenon.
Yes, now the smoke has cleared, and that's nice. But still -- you don't KNOW how much you are using, do you????
Ok, you may know precisely, and you also may know approximately, and, as I said before, most people do in fact know approximately, just not precisly.
So most people know either precisely or approximately how much THEY use. But what they don't know, and what no one knows, is how much Comcast THINKS they're using. Because they do get it wrong sometimes.
One clue is this -- it's because this problem was so extremely frustratingly hard to chip away at and understand over the years, and there were so many contradictions and so forth, and it's like "These bandwidth "hogs" are lying because that's what they do" approach -- but what is that REALLY?
Ok --- see, we DIDN'T know. And we couldn't figure it out, at least not consistently.
The simple fact of the matter is that they get it wrong sometimes. What they think you downloaded and what you actually downloaded gets mixed up. It's been confirmed by a number of people (anecdotally, that is). People know -- they know what they're up to -- give people more credit and see the situation for what it is -- Comcast has had a history of getting the subscribers mixed up (at least once or twice, probably more). Anectodally, that is (from forums like these and Slashdot, etc.).
And all it takes is getting it mixed up with a tech-savvy person and then you have what we have here -- nobody can figure out what in the parallel universe is going on. That's why. And they are perturbingly parallel universes UNTIL someone puts a usage counter up there.
A clear cap means nothing if Comcast doesn't make proper, pertinent information available on a constant, consistent basis. There also need to be methods available to resolve disputes.
Perhaps it's not particularly puzzling that the overage fees weren't implemented. If the measurement tools aren't 100% accurate, you can imagine the chaos that would ensue... "Comcast, the ISP that hits you with hundreds of dollars of overage charges that aren't yours". Just like they're well known for charging people for their own modems when they cancel the account -- with resolution systems that really require reengineering.
I have felt for a long time now that this issue is so controversial, such a heated topic, and there are so many posts lacking any sort of definitive answer (including this one) -- that perhaps an underlying string of inaccuracies is a perfectly plausible explanation.
You'll see that many folks admit they downloaded a lot, and some of them are angry because they FELT they didn't do anything wrong -- in other words, the folks who feel that downloading a lot is OK. And, well, of course, sometimes you will have people who stretch the truth in their posts to make it look like they downloaded less than they did. And then there may be the son or daughter who is hiding the fact that they "did" something "bad" from their parent(s) who have no clue why the data transfer is so voluminous.
But then, there are those customers who have posted here and there and everywhere in between looking for help, clueless as to how this data transfer is adding up, and I have a hunch that is is these few individuals who have unknowingly amplified the existing corporate boneheadedness and that synergy has brought this problem to all of our attention.
So we're not really anywhere we weren't before, if you asked me. In any way that counts, that is. The system as it stands is probably not accurate enough to do overage charges (or so it seems). With the internet becoming increasingly important, having your account cancelled because of a glitch in the system is simply not a chance I'm willing to take. Even though it is extremely remote.
The main thing is that there's probably more (or less, actually) to the story -- to the emotions it brings out in people -- and it is exactly this which has made the story as "hot" of a topic as it has been for the past few years. Who monitors the monitors? Can you trust the information collected on you by someone providing a service to you? Should you not have timely access to this information?
I think they're in for a treat.