how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
470 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| 250 GB is predatory and unreasonable Comcast is very fortunate they have not yet been the subject of a class action lawsuit for their predatory throttling as well as their previously undisclosed predatory cap, in opposition to the falsely advertised "unlimited" they promised their users. They even went so far as to target power users and to vilify them as "abusive."
I, for one, am fortunate I have never had to suffer through their deceptions and PREDATORY behavior.
A 250 GB cap is totally ridiculous and highly predatory. In today's day and age, 250 GB is inappropriate for single users or families, and it can be used in a week. This may mystify some who think it is generous for a whole month (!), but it is far from generous. If Comcast wishes not to be seen as a predatory and deceptive business, loathed by serious net users everywhere, I suggest they raise their bandwidth cap to something more appropriate. I might suggest 1 - 1.25 TB. That seems to be more fitting with all the downloads and video streaming available. In addition, as they themselves are often wont to point out, most people don't even come close to 250 GB, so I doubt very many would utilize 1 or 1.25 TB a month. If someone is somehow using 2 or 3 TB in a month, I can understand putting a cap on that. I can also understand having a separate upstream cap of maybe 75-150 GB, or even less. If someone is using any more than that for upstream, they are most likely a commercial venture and should get a T3 connection, but a 250 GB limit for downloads and video streaming? GET REAL! This is 2008, and that number is a sick joke! It would be totally unnecessary with the network management policies outlined on their web site, as well as deploying a separate upstream cap. A bandwidth cap of 1-1.25 TB would be more reasonable, and Comcast would then be championed and respected by users everywhere. And maybe that would need to be raised in 5 or 10 yeas, but for 2008...THAT is what is appropriate, not a ridiculous and predatory 250 GB!
For the record, I feel the network management outlined on the Comcast site is appropriate. It is the obscene bandwidth cap I object to.
By the way, I posted a message very similar to this on wired.com last night, but it was removed shortly thereafter. First and only post at that site. Evidently they are big proponents of censorship, or Comcast has influence over there. | | |
|
| 250GB is nothing.
I WISH my ISP had a 250GB cap. We currently have 40G here with PTD and I'm fairly certain that one day I'll reach it, with all of the devices in my house now plugged in. | |
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to Voice of Reason
A cap shouldn't be based around what the average person uses, or anything like that- if you have to cap, the cap should be what the network can handle. Caps lower than that are just an attempt to grab more money from power-users, but if they're not actually putting a stress on the network they shouldn't be charged more.
I actually prefer a FAP-based system to a cap system... that way you have the opportunity to do your heavy downloading at times of day when you are less likely to impact network performance, while with a cap there's no motivation to do so, since it will all add up to your cap anyway. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Voice of Reason
said by Voice of Reason :
By the way, I posted a message very similar to this on wired.com last night, but it was removed shortly thereafter. First and only post at that site. Evidently they are big proponents of censorship, or Comcast has influence over there.
It's there.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/comcast-disclos.html#comment-131506900
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
 badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Voice of Reason
I can guarantee Comcast will be hit with a lawsuit over this and I hope they do. We pay for SPEED tiers, if Comcast purposely degrades speed, we are not getting what we paid for. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by badtrip:I can guarantee Comcast will be hit with a lawsuit over this and I hope they do. We pay for SPEED tiers, if Comcast purposely degrades speed, we are not getting what we paid for. ?? degrade speeds ??
The whole thread is about the disclosure of a bandwidth cap and the designation of 250 GB as Excessive Use.
I think your message is a great example why Comcast should pick EITHER the Excessive Use clarification OR the usage-based deprioritizing for now. Doing both is just clouding the issue.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| reply to Voice of Reason
said by Voice of Reason :
A 250 GB cap is totally ridiculous and highly predatory. In today's day and age, 250 GB is inappropriate for single users or families, and it can be used in a week.
What? You can hit 250 in a month, no doubt there, but 'totally ridiculous and highly predatory'? I disagree. As for using it in a week, wow... I wish I was that lucky with my internet, no way could I consume 250gb in a week.
I personally think the cap is fine, for now. I really wish they would flat out commit to evaluating and raising the cap every other year or so though... after all, what is reasonable for now could quickly become an absurdly low cap. That is my only real worry with this. | |
|
