dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
32
share rss forum feed

MrSpock29

join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
reply to netcool

Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here

said by netcool :

said by funchords:

Comcast first started this across-the-board threatening and disconnection of higher-bandwidth users 5 years ago, based on their TOS provision against someone using the service in a way that negatively impacted it. The trouble is, they were using the bandwidth amount without ever showing a negative impact -- they simply rationalized that someone who was using over (some undisclosed number) that they simply must be causing an undue impact. That undisclosed number became known as the "invisible cap" because it was a "defacto" cap and remained absolutely undisclosed except through making the same hard-to-read inference to that "impact" part of Comcast's TOS.
That sounds like you are making a few leaps of faith there. Abuse is handled on a case by case basis from what I've seen. If many users start complaining about slow speeds off a certain node it is passed over to abuse for investigation. Or conversely if the market engineers notice that a node with only 50 subscribers is routinely running hot on their capacity reports it is passed over to abuse.

I don't think the top .01% are kicked off every year for abuse or even get "the call." If that were the case I would imagine we would see quite a few more posts here complaining about it. It seems to me that it would be a waste of resources to investigate every sub who went over 250gb UNLESS they were actually causing an issue.
I don't agree at all. I got the call (and part of the reason was their fault-service didn't work properly) and after thorough investigation, I was told that no one complained, and that I was NOT negatively impacting my node. As one guy from "Quality Assurance" (what a misleading name) told me, "you made the list". He said it was his job to call, not allow me to speak to anyone else, and not to give his name. If I didn't like it, then I should sue them. He said some other things too. I had Comcast triple play, switched it all, and what happened to me got others to switch just for the point of how they acted. I will never go back to them, even though I am back to 3 MBPS DSL. I don't care.
You should do internet searches and just see how many people get the call.

Comcast wouldn't have so many people complaining to the FCC, FTC, etc, if they were honest about things, so remember that also. It isn't up to others either to judge how much is ok and how much isn't. Unfortunately, the ignorant point of view is that "If you use xyz amount you are doing illegal things". And yes, Comcast took this view with me, until I informed him that I showed EVERYTHING I was downloading to the tech when he came out to fix my service problem. After all, we had to test it to make sure he fixed it. Funny how he also did not take me up on my offer to have them come over any time they wanted without warning, and I'd give them full access to the computer to see what was done. They did a lot of ASSUMING, and you know what they say about that.


netcool

@comcast.net

How much did you download?

I'm not denying that people get kicked off, again I just don't think 14,000 people are getting "the call" each year. Most of the evidence we have is anecdotal and comes from a very vocal minority.

Logically why would you want to waste resources on non-issues (i.e people using lots of bandwidth but NOT adversely affecting the system?) To get bad PR, make sure you hire extra people to handle all the abuse calls? I suppose it could be true but I have to think Comcast is just trying to protect its bottom line.


MrSpock29

join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ

said by netcool :

How much did you download?

I'm not denying that people get kicked off, again I just don't think 14,000 people are getting "the call" each year. Most of the evidence we have is anecdotal and comes from a very vocal minority.

Logically why would you want to waste resources on non-issues (i.e people using lots of bandwidth but NOT adversely affecting the system?) To get bad PR, make sure you hire extra people to handle all the abuse calls? I suppose it could be true but I have to think Comcast is just trying to protect its bottom line.
It's 14,000 per MONTH. They told me the lists and calls are monthly, at the percentages quoted often. Comcast is trying to avoid getting their infrastructure into the 21st Century, and they don't want people streaming movies and everything else that would hurt their own business. My total was a little north of 250. In the AUP it says they can do this if you are harming your neighbors (paraphrasing). They admitted I was not and they had zero complaints.