reply to netcool
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here
said by netcool : Of course it's a lowball/lowest common denominator. by having to state a national number they had to determine the highest number that the least capable/most crowded node in the country could sustain. Most can probably handle more.
.........As funchords noted I think the cap is somewhat lowball as well; the invisi-caps seemed to be a bit higher.
When people look at the cap I think they should be asking themselves if it's reasonable. At this time I do believe 250gb is reasonable. It would be a good idea for Comcast to state how they plan on keeping the cap fair (i.e re-evaluating it every so often etc.)
and that number/capablity may even be higher then the current stated cap, they may have left some cushion in the number (they won't get compliants if they later raise it, but having to drop an overinflated cap would be a PR diaster)
The way I see the cap is they may not cut you off/warn you just for exceeding it IF your activity does not impact others, but once you pass 250GB, you are in the danger zone.
That is not just your activity, but if your node/CMTS gets stressed by the aggregete useage, THEN they'll start working their way down the 250+ list.
I'm sure the system is still evolving, even having tested it in a few markets they'll still need to evaluate the results of a nationwide roll out.
It will take a few months to weed out those who intend to push the limit.
I don't think the system is greatly changed from what existed before, it's just a little more transparent/public.
We are still talking about a very, very small percentage of subs being effected/capped, but maybe a very large group of subs whose service will improve/be more consistant/be less likely to be effected by an overloaded system.