said by K Patterson :

I do not think they have any intention of offering a meter. If they did, we would have people bragging about downloading 600Gb while another complains about being kicked for 260.

said by K Patterson :

...It also doesn't make much sense that they haven't been able to complete and release it.

...

said by sturmvogel :

Maybe after looking more at the data that "average" 2-3 GB usage/mo turned out to be higher and they are concerned that if people would have a way to easily monitor the usage, all that stark contrast between the 2-3 GB and 251 GB "hogs" would not have the desired effect ?

said by sturmvogel :

Maybe after looking more at the data that "average" 2-3 GB usage/mo turned out to be higher and they are concerned that if people would have a way to easily monitor the usage, all that stark contrast between the 2-3 GB and 251 GB "hogs" would not have the desired effect ?

said by espaeth :

2-3GB is the median usage rate; the average is surely much higher.

said by DarkLogix :

well it makes since to use median as they're saying the averave user not the averave use

if the did datause/#users=it would be the average amount used not the amount the average user uses

slight diff

but still I think caps should just go

said by sturmvogel :

Yeah, I guess it makes sense.

If they cannot sustain the heavy use I guess caps are one way to address that. I do not like it, but they have a right to do it. I believe they should be upfront about it in the advertisements and all related communications about the service, though.

said by JohnInSJ :

It's cost. You want it cheap, or you want it unlimited? It costs a lot more to build capacity to support 20,30,50, or 100% capacity usage.

That's one reason why a "slow" 1.5Mbit symmetrical T1 line will cost you ~$400/month, even today.

Are you ready to pay 10-50-80X as much for your comcast HSI? The over-subscription model gives you access to speeds you could never afford if the provider also expected 100% usage.

Up until recently, no one would be able to find enough content on the internet to come anywhere near those limits, unless you were a content provider (on a T1, or T3, paying hundreds or thousands a month for connectivity) - end users surfing and doing email? Trickle...

So yeah, be careful what you wish for. Or hope it gets a lot cheaper to build out massive excess capacity that sits idle 75-80% of the time.

said by sturmvogel :

Truth in advertising.

said by JohnInSJ :

What planet do you live on? Do you like it there?

Sprint wireless unlimited* data plan: 5GB cap.

AT&T Unlimited* uverse: sliding cap based on speed. Less then Comcast's - doesn't point out in big bold letters that your speed is limited if you happen to be watching HDTV...

Wonder what the verizon FiOS caps will be once everyone runs over there

Comcast buries their cap in their AUP just like everyone else.

said by JohnInSJ :

Sprint *now* clearly says it, but there are many people who signed 1 and 2 year contracts when it was unstated, and now are stuck. Welcome to comcast!

AT&T said no caps on uverse, *EVER*, and hey presto now they are going to caps.

Verizon says no caps, *EVER*, on FiOS. Bets, anyone?

Anyway, at this point clearly you know about comcast's caps. I assume you've leaving for an uncapped provider?

said by JohnInSJ :

Because 5gb is pretty darn easy to use even at EVDO speeds, while 250gb is a lot more realistic, even at 12/2 speeds.

Plus, I and everyone else here knows full well what the comcast cap is. Seriously.

said by JohnInSJ :

It's right there in the AUP.

You check a box when you sign up for service that says

"I have reviewed the AUP and agree"

So, uh, again, where is the secret? They also don't advertise that you cannot run a server on the residential service. Is that a problem for you too?

said by JohnInSJ :

I don't find it a strawman argument. Buyer beware, but we can disagree on this. The only people who would even understand what "your usage is soft-capped at 250GB a month" *means* already do know it, the other 99% would never hit that cap anyway.

I'm sure you disagree with that too

said by JohnInSJ :

quote:

---

You said that a list of providers ALL hide the caps in the AUP

---

No, I said the CAP was IN the AUP, not HIDDEN THERE.

You agree to the AUP when you sign up. You say "Yes, I READ IT, I UNDERSTAND IT, I AGREE TO BE BOUND BY IT."

It is common practice to put all manner of things in the AUP that are not mentioned in any advertisement.

Do you agree with that?

said by sturmvogel :

Remember, the discussion was about the fact that not all the providers in the list you mentioned do not list the cap limit in the advertisements.

said by JohnInSJ :

Edit..

So, you agree but don't like it.

Cool. Change the laws and get back to me.

said by sturmvogel :

Will do.

said by JohnInSJ :

Verizon says no caps, *EVER*, on FiOS.

said by JohnInSJ :

then Comcast's - doesn't point out in big bold letters that your speed is limited if you happen to be watching HDTV...

said by K Patterson :

It also doesn't make much sense that they haven't been able to complete and release it.

said by netcool :

The intention to release it is definitely there. Whether it's ready for primetime or not is another issue. Certain bugs with certain vendors need to be worked out before it will be viable.