That depends. When Intel was still on cc:Mail, I could have swore the thing xferred a gig just to retrieve a two-line message!
Actually, fiberguy, I like some of the realism in your message. People ought to arrange their backups in a bandwidth-friendly manner -- but a monthly cap doesn't necessarily drive the right behavior. Wouldn't it be best to incentive-ize the scheduling of these activities to sometime outside of Prime-Time?
I remain un-enthused about the cap. On one hand, a real cap is an improvement over the mystery cap. On the other, the notion that "nothing is changing, we're just specifying the cap now" bugs me.
I haven't worked it all out yet, but the things I'd like to see:
1. More up-front notification at time of sale (might be coming, we'll see)
2. A decent self-monitoring tool or other adequate heads-up to users who are trending dangerously.
3. A more cooperative and educational approach towards users.
4. Some alternative to the 12-month "grounding" crap. Maybe the 768/256 connection (which mathematically should never hit the cap, by the way) would work. Who the Hell does Comcast think it is to put customers on a "time-out"? If a customer won't cooperate, then refuse his business -- they're not Red Foreman and their customers aren't their kids. I'm not sure anything is operationally wrong with this, other than that the positioning of it makes me feel like they have no respect for their customers.
5. And this is a must -- the 250 GB limit must grow and be real. Cox has an old 60 GB limit that is rarely, if ever, enforced -- so it is duly and deservedly ignored. So if Comcast says 250 GB but really means 600 or 700 GB (which is probably near the right range for next year since this year seems to be 450-550 GB), then it's just more bogus Comcastic positioning.
I don't know. I just don't know. Comcast has batted around the truth so badly for so long, I can't trust any two words in a row, anymore. I really do want them to be improving, and not just giving lip service to it.