dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to sturmvogel

Re: Comcast 250GB limit

said by sturmvogel:

"This is the same system we have in place today," Comcast wrote in an amendment to its acceptable use policy. "The only difference is that we will now provide a limit by which a customer may be contacted."

The article is excellent, it points clearly in my opinion to the fact that the monopoly is trying to use its Internet Service Provider division to hamper customers' usage of competing video on demand services.

i'm not suprised you like the article, as it states an opinion similar to your own.
but consider the idea that ComCast is trying to responsibly manage their current network capacity, not what they may offer in the future, not what you believe/wish they offered now, but what they believe they can reasonably deliver today.
of course by being forced to give 1 national figure for the cap, they had to look at what their least capable nodes can actually provide. and they can't raise the level until EVERY node nationwide is able to provide that higher level of service.
even if the service in a single area is hampered, not by technical restriction, but by local permitting difficulties/costs/demands when attempting to make improvements/investments in that plant.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by tshirt:

said by sturmvogel:

"This is the same system we have in place today," Comcast wrote in an amendment to its acceptable use policy. "The only difference is that we will now provide a limit by which a customer may be contacted."

The article is excellent, it points clearly in my opinion to the fact that the monopoly is trying to use its Internet Service Provider division to hamper customers' usage of competing video on demand services.

i'm not suprised you like the article, as it states an opinion similar to your own.
but consider the idea that ComCast is trying to responsibly manage their current network capacity, not what they may offer in the future, not what you believe/wish they offered now, but what they believe they can reasonably deliver today.
of course by being forced to give 1 national figure for the cap, they had to look at what their least capable nodes can actually provide. and they can't raise the level until EVERY node nationwide is able to provide that higher level of service.
even if the service in a single area is hampered, not by technical restriction, but by local permitting difficulties/costs/demands when attempting to make improvements/investments in that plant.
And if they would have done that from the beginning, they would not have run into trouble, nor would lawsuits be necessary. If the "abuse" rep would have said that I could use 250 GB / month without being a problem, we would not be discussing this today.
--
Treason is a matter of dates