Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to inferno
Re: This is pathetic...
It's not like they have a choice. The FCC already slammed them on network neutrality, do you think they want to be slapped up again? |
|
anony501
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| Q: What are CAPs for?
A: To differentiate commercial level usage from residential level service (and the cost to deliver it).
If you use far more than everyone else, it cost more than everyone else and you should pay more than everyone else (i.e. commercial service)
Even with this service offering combined with Hulu, Netflix, etc the vast majority of users don't come close to the 250G threshold. There needs to be some sort of line in order to ensure the cost to deliver residential service is not inflated for all by a minority of a few.
»Editorial: Caps are welcome
{insert OB CAP discussion here} |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :It's not like they have a choice. The FCC already slammed them on network neutrality, do you think they want to be slapped up again? then they need to up them caps now don't they? |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :It's not like they have a choice. The FCC already slammed them on network neutrality, do you think they want to be slapped up again? Not like they HAD a choice? I highly DOUBT the FCC is MAKING Comcast count the cap AGAINST thier OWN services  |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Yes, the FCC really beat them up last year about their network management practices. With the new FCC chief being pro net neutrality, you're not going to see the FCC welcoming Comcast's unfair treatment of its own services. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to BF69
Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :Yes, the FCC really beat them up last year about their network management practices. With the new FCC chief being pro net neutrality, you're not going to see the FCC welcoming Comcast's unfair treatment of its own services. Come on now the FCC is a toothless bureaucracy and did NOTHING to Comcast, Public Perception on the other hand had to sting a little.
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to anony501
"If you use far more than everyone else, it cost more than everyone else and you should pay more than everyone else (i.e. commercial service)"
And if you want to purchase that, it is NOT offered.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? Not now but as more people watch more online video which is being presented in ever higher bitrates it will be an issue very soon. |
|
wenter99
Alpha Male
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Albuquerque, NM
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? Only what you read from the regular handfull who piss and moan about it around here.
--
Terry
"Sometimes all you can do is just hunker down and take it, like a jackass caught out in a hail storm". LBJ |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by wenter99 :said by openbox9 :Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? Only what you read from the regular handfull who piss and moan about it around here. Or from the CC fanboys that troll trying to counter act the discontent.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to Hangmn
When you service the public, public perception is everything.
I do agree that the FCC should be given a bit more teeth though. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Especially when you are the cable industry and have been "servicing" the public for decades without sending one flower, card, box of chocolates or even calling the next day.
Had Comcast not been so adamant about hiding it's management practices, to the point of lying about it, maybe they would not have this network neutrality conundrum to deal with?
Doesn't really matter though. They'll botch this just like they did The Fan...  |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to Eat Me
"It's not like they have a choice."
Sure they do. They could improve their network to the point that their users can actually can USE the service they pay for to its full extent and then eliminate the need for any caps at all. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to sturmvogel
said by sturmvogel :"If you use far more than everyone else, it cost more than everyone else and you should pay more than everyone else (i.e. commercial service)" And if you want to purchase that, it is NOT offered. They can only sell it in places they have capacity.
I had no problem getting business service installed at my house here in Minnesota after the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades were rolled out. (It was prohibited before that due to neighborhood capacity concerns) |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to anony501
Since most commercial bandwidth is bought by the 95th percentile method(google 95th percentile bandwidth), they do not by pay by the GB but by the Mbps. So downloading during off peak hours costs them nothing. Monthly caps do not address congestion either. Their throttling system addresses the issue of congestion. So why are they capping?
I think they have been developing this video for a long time (pre cap). Now that they have it developed they are in a bad situation with the cap. Since their video service would presumably live on their own backbone there would be no transit costs. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to espaeth
this was also foreseen...
Comcast is full of s***!
we had this debate when cablecos first announced caps to combat a supposed bandwidth crunch. If there was a bandwidth crunch, then why would an ISP that was instrumental in facilitating caps in order to help the bandwidth crunch turn around and circumvent there own remedy by offering even more media online chewing up even more bandwidth?
Money,thats why!
This cap issue has always been, and will always be about adding additional revenues. Its never been about intellectual property, thats the vehicle they used to sell it!
Its just freakin Comcraptic
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Eat Me
Re: This is pathetic...
yes but many of what the FCC did to Comcast they also appeal it with the Courts to see if the FCC even had the "right" to even fine or make them change. Comcast does not give up easily.
but ATT should be treated the same as Comcast but we all know they're not. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow :Since most commercial bandwidth is bought by the 95th percentile method(google 95th percentile bandwidth), they do not by pay by the GB but by the Mbps. So downloading during off peak hours costs them nothing. Monthly caps do not address congestion either. Their throttling system addresses the issue of congestion. So why are they capping? According to recent stories posted here there are a large number of people who don't even know what 1GB of data actually is, so hopes of explaining 95th percentile billing to the average customer is a lost cause. The cap is nothing more than a yardstick to allow the heavy users to gauge "how much is too much." The QoS system helps address the impact of congestion on the network, but in an ideal world you should queue as close to 0.0% of the time as possible. I believe the goal of the cap is simply to temper some of the demand to reduce the need to queue.
said by Lazlow :I think they have been developing this video for a long time (pre cap). Now that they have it developed they are in a bad situation with the cap. Since their video service would presumably live on their own backbone there would be no transit costs. With a provider the size of Comcast, the backbone costs represent a very minimal portion of the overall service costs. Whether it's hosted on the big bad Internet or on their own internal network is somewhat a moot point with the contracts they undoubtedly have in place. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| But its the contracts they might have in place that make the whole bandwidth crunch a falicy. Comcast is now trying to sell you advertising via their psuedo " online tv" on bandwidth that wasn't supposed to be there. Wasn't this the justification for the caps in the first place?
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
