 jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | reply to knightmb
Re: Finally said by knightmb:Ok, so they pull out the "only 1% of Comcast customers are excessive users" and then further go on that it's actually even less because those that were excessive tend to be virus/spam/open wi-fi abuse. So actually, what they are saying is that instead of helping to fix grandmom's virus/trojan infected machine, we will blame the problem on the 1% of the 1% of the 1% that actually use more than 250GB a month of bandwidth instead which out of the many thousands of customers they have, would probably be about 2 or 3 people per state who aren't virus/trojan/open wi-fi users? That's not what is intended at all. In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc.
Jason
--
JL
Comcast |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by jlivingood:That's not what is intended at all. In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc. Jason Fair enough, my opinion is that those that are upset by the cap will point to this as another reason why they are against it. I think maybe it should be worded a little different so that it doesn't seem to blend in the excessive users and those users that are excessive but didn't know any better because they had a virus/trojan/wi-fi, etc. That's what I took from it when I read it.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to jlivingood
said by jlivingood:That's not what is intended at all. In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc. Jason No see once watching movies and TV on the internet becomes more common place and higher bitrates are used it's your job to let customers know that if they only got their content from Comcast they wouldn't go over thier cap which in the end is the REAL reason for the cap. Because honestly a straight cap is a VERY VERY retarded way of managing bandwidth. Anyone with even 1/4 of a brain knows that. |
|
| TRUTH. I'm a great example of big ISP's worst nightmare. I pay out $150/mo to Comcast. I'm now going to drop TV service and go with internet service only. I have a Xbox 360, PS3 and 2 PC's. I have plenty of viewing options on those machines through a combination of pay (Netflix) and free (Hulu) services. Comcast no longer has value to me. In fact, I'm probably going to go over to uverse, drop TV and get either the 10 or 18mbps program for LESS money than a 8mbps pipe @ Comcast. That is ofcourse unless AT&T releases the BS caps they're testing nationwide.
Either way... they see the writing on the wall. Their business model is falling apart in the long run. As it should. People shouldn't have to pay $X for 300 channels when they only watch 4-5 of them on a regular basis. |
|
