fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I don't get it... Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. |
|
|
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. So very true....
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I disagree. The amount of people that were barking about the 'unknown cap' were so few outside of tech forums that it was contextually insignificant. Comcast used this as an excuse to implement a cap in order to continue the policy of overselling an overburdoned network. This excuse (blaming excessive piracy through torrents) is a much easier sell than going back to the share holders and saying 'we need to spend x amount of dollars to expand our infrastructure in order to accomodate the expanding network use and applications'. Look at it this way, with continued growth of applications through their network, they'll have to upgrade anyway. By implementing a cap system, they can also sell tiered usage with this as a baseline.
And a question for the Jason the comcast guy....what versions of Linux is Comcast using to host sandvine? |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by S_engineer:said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I disagree. The amount of people that were barking about the 'unknown cap' were so few outside of tech forums that it was contextually insignificant. Comcast used this as an excuse to implement a cap in order to continue the policy of overselling an overburdoned network. This excuse (blaming excessive piracy through torrents) is a much easier sell than going back to the share holders and saying 'we need to spend x amount of dollars to expand our infrastructure in order to accomodate the expanding network use and applications'. Look at it this way, with continued growth of applications through their network, they'll have to upgrade anyway. By implementing a cap system, they can also sell tiered usage with this as a baseline. And a question for the Jason the comcast guy....what versions of Linux is Comcast using to host sandvine? It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate.
Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to fiberguy
Absolutely. If you cap a previously open service, you will get people who will complain regardless of the cap. Welcome to life. Trust me, your day will continue...
cw |
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. Spare me this "we all have to suffer". If you were not using 250, you are not getting anything different. If you were using more than 250, then you are right there with the crowd you call "abusers" and you would have been called by the "abuse" department anyway.
How are you "suffering" ? You make my blood boil. This strategy of turning users against users by apparent pro comcast "plants" is what is the most disgusting in this scam of overselling a sub par network. |
|
| said by Sturm :said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. Spare me this "we all have to suffer". If you were not using 250, you are not getting anything different. If you were using more than 250, then you are right there with the crowd you call "abusers" and you would have been called by the "abuse" department anyway. How are you "suffering" ? You make my blood boil. This strategy of turning users against users by apparent pro comcast "plants" is what is the most disgusting in this scam of overselling a sub par network. What we are "suffering" is that now we KNOW what we could count on. No more vague units in variable confusing lengths to muddy the waters as in how many emails or MP3s or pictures we could send. We know that 250GB is a accepted value we as users could count on and compare service with truly unlimited services as DSL and FiOS deliver compared to the METERED service CC has.
Truth is important in advertising for the consumer to make an informed choice. It took a court order and is a victory against questionable business practices. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to Rob
said by Rob:It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate. Rob, the FCC had nothing to do with the caps.
Footnote 3 in "FCC New Network Management Technique" addresses Comcast's position directly:
These congestion management practices are independent of, and should not be confused with, our recent announcement that we will amend the “excessive use” portion of our Acceptable Use Policy, effective October 1, 2008, to establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB per account for all residential HSI customers. This excessive use threshold is designed to prevent any one residential account from consuming excessive amounts of network resources as measured over the course of a month. That cap does not address the issue of network congestion, which results from traffic levels that vary from minute to minute. We have long had an “excessive use” limit in our Acceptable Use Policy but have been criticized for failing to specify what is considered to be “excessive.” The new cap provides clarity to customers regarding the specific monthly consumption limit per account. As with the existing policy, a user who violates the excessive use policy twice within six months is subject to having his or her Internet service account terminated for one year. said by Rob:Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. Not only do I think you're right about that, I think that the 250 GB amount is still a net money-loser for Comcast. That doesn't make the cap a good thing, I'd prefer no cap. But if they're going to have a cap, it's good to have it disclosed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK | reply to Sturm
Are you willing to pay to upgrade this "sub-par" network? Or do you think you should get it for free?
As your blood boils, tell us your solution. I hope it's one that doesn't cost money. |
|
| said by bjbrock:Are you willing to pay to upgrade this "sub-par" network? Or do you think you should get it for free? As your blood boils, tell us your solution. I hope it's one that doesn't cost money. Yes, I AM willing to pay. I WAS willing to pay for my high usage. Was not accepted.
The solution is for the federal government to break the monopoly Comcast is. Anti trust regulation is designed for that. Open up the cable franchise for competition. Funny where CC has competition suddenly the service improves. Just a coincidence, of course.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
| reply to funchords
There is a correlation. The lower the latency, the more bandwidth available. Or, how many transactions per second are being accomplished. Its all about response time.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | I understand. I agree with you that the Cap and the prioritization are related in probable effect. Comcast shouldn't need both. |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to bjbrock
Take a look at Comcast's margins...looks like people are already paying. They are certainly paying enough to fund Brian's new ivory tower and 5th Ave Apple Store inspired stairs. With their new FAP system, there is simply no justification for monthly caps. The FAP alone provides all the network management necessary to insure so-called hogs aren't adversely affecting other users.
Of course you could find a dead naked boy in Brian Roberts' trunk and the coaxial kissasses will make excuses for it. |
|
| reply to bjbrock
said by bjbrock:Are you willing to pay to upgrade this "sub-par" network? Or do you think you should get it for free? As your blood boils, tell us your solution. I hope it's one that doesn't cost money.
Verizon built a fiber network from the ground up (which cost over 20 billion), and their rates are competitive with any ISP. So, why do subscribers have to subsidise improvements to Comcast's infrastructure? |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | They must fill the Brian Roberts retirement fund. |
|
| reply to S_engineer
Who cares if you are capped or even throttled, the thing to be alarmed about is what they claim is their throttling practice. Send RST packets is NOT throttling, it is faking packets. People, wake up on this one. I am not going to bust into any damn stupid analogies. Just remember this, Comcast's "traffic shaping" or "throttling" service does nothing more than pretend to be the site or service you are connecting to and send you bullshit back so you information being sent and received is lost. Slow me down, cap me, just don't touch my shit! |
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I can't speak for everyone, but I feel this issue is badly misrepresented. I was a victim to that invisible cap (partly because of their own service issue no less), and I felt that they shouldn't have a cap, but they also shouldn't tell me that their invisible caps changed every month, and then boot me because of it. They were enforcing something that changed every month, and would terminate people based on that moving target. There was no room for discussion, they didn't even care if they were to blame for the overage. "comcast cares" told me that himself. That is patently wrong, and stupid.
Comcast has never proven that a cap is necessary. They have also never been honest about the hidden caps they had. IF they had a cap, they had an obligation to spell it out in the AUP, and they did not. That doesn't mean I would ever support that cap.
Out of over 7 years with them, I went over their hidden cap once. Their poor way of handling it, and their bad treatment of me, was enough to cause me to leave and go down to DSL which is slower here.
Before the trolls step in, let me get the usual stuff out of the way. There was no P2P traffic that I was doing, everything I was downloading was perfectly legal and in the public domain. I was downloading files used in making weather maps! Oooh.....evil!!!! |
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. That how an Ostrich approaches a problem, by sticking their head in a hole and pretending that the problem doesn't exist. Wanting an invisible cap doesn't mean it will not be applied. As we saw with Comcast and others that they did apply the invisible caps. Comcast making know what the cap is doesn't change anything. It only put those who down load about 100 Gigs a month at ease. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to compton
said by compton:Verizon built a fiber network from the ground up (which cost over 20 billion), and their rates are competitive with any ISP. So, why do subscribers have to subsidise improvements to Comcast's infrastructure? Has Verizon even picked up 2 million FiOS subscribers yet?
It's important to keep in mind why Verizon dumped money into FiOS, and it wasn't to be able to deliver kick-ass Internet service. They started rolling FiOS to cash in on the triple play and deliver video services to the customer as well. The ROI for the FiOS deployment is almost entirely within their video services.
Comcast already has a triple play. |
|
