Comcast XFINITY → Re: Doubtful Comcast will ever release the bandwidth meter

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 ?

Is 2-3GB what they claim as typical? That seems low to me. But why should that matter? When users all see they are at even 50GB, the 250GB cap wont be an issue (except for those planning to change usage, by signing up for legal movie streaming, ouch)

They claim 1-2% of the pipe capacity.

It's actually fairly accurate. Ask any ISP.

We've done this math before, but for fun let's go with a 12/2 line, 14Mbps total, or 14Mb*60*60*24*30=4.3258667 terabytes total bandwidth capacity.

Take 1% of that...
14 Mb * 60 * 60 * 24 * 30 * .01 = 44.296875 gigabytes
Or 2%
88GB
and there you go.

The oversubscribed model is based on providing enough capacity for 1-2% usage across all users.

Given Comcast has a stated cap of 250GB - closer to 7% - they may actually be using a 5-10% oversubscribed model.

A nice article (it even mentions Comcast!) that explains the reality of the business is

»jobs.tmcnet.com/topics/b ··· ment.htm

One quote:

quote:

---

Consumer broadband services are usually priced based on their peak download bit rate. A DSL service might be good for 3 Mbps, a cable modem set to 6 Mbps, and a fiber-to-the-home service rated at 50 Mbps. The ratio of peak to average rate is known as the oversubscription ratio. This ratio can be very high in practice. Today, a typical consumers average usage might be in the 50 kbps range. (Thats about an order of magnitude higher than the average dial-up modem users usage.) So the oversubscription ratio could well be over 50 or even 100 to one! That has a big impact on the retail ISPs costs.

---

Or, 1-2% usage.

and thats just on the low tier
16/2 18*60*60*24*30/1024/1024/8
5.56182861328125 Terabytes
then ramp on upto 50/10
18.5394287109375 Terabytes

but then figure the capasity of an 8ch line
127.3040771484375 Terabytes permonth
304+108*60*60*24*30/1024/1024/8

that means is everyone on a node had an 8ch modem but was only on the 16/2 tier then
22.888888888888888888888888888889 users could go full speed all the time
or 6.8666666666666666666666666666667 users on the 50/10 plan could go fullspeed all the time

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

Good that using the median and calling it average in "the call" paints a lower usage picture. I wonder who benefits from it ?

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

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.

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.

Truth in advertising.

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.

Sprint CLEARLY (but in small print) states the 5 GB limitation in their latest advertisements.

I live on Earth. The Mars outpost is not ready yet, but I hear that Verizon will provide FiOS there (no caps).

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?

I believe it was wrong to imply that the service was unlimited and turns out that it is. It seems that you agree on that when it comes to Sprint. Sprint now clearly states it. Comcast still does not. So why is still Sprint still seen by you as the worse of the two ?

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.

We are talking about advertising to the public, not what we know on DSLReports.

If the public would know what we know, the situation would be different.

I can reach the 250 GB cap using my connection 3.5 hrs a day at SIX megabit speed. I would say that is darn easy, too.

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?

Is the AUP presented in the advertisements ? No.

If you try to pick strawman arguments, I have a problem with rabbits running across fields toward north east on Fridays at 9 AM. I am sure you could paint that as me having an unsubstantiated gripe against CC advertisements.

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

You said that a list of providers ALL hide the caps in the AUP. I stated that one in the list did not.

You pointed that the caps were stated in the AUP that almost nobody reads and immediately shifted to an unrelated clause that would be easier to knock down than the original argument, weakening the stance of the interlocutor. Classic strawman argument.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Now, let's use you 99%/1% argument on something else, like medication. Firm A markets drug A1. 99% of patients will not have ill effects, 1% might/will. Should the disclaimer be presented ONLY to doctors, since the public would not understand it 99% and only 1% might suffer ? I am sure the FDA would like to hear about that.
After all, if the patient signs / check the AUP all is just fine, no ?

That is what regulation does. It helps information and safety for ALL regarding the products they use/have purchased. I am sure many firms would maybe like regulations to be different, but it makes it better for us all.

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?

You actually said: "Comcast buries their cap in their AUP just like everyone else". So, yes, it IS in the AUP. Why did you use the word "buries" ? My English is weak, I understood that as an attempt to hide something, maybe because it could have an explosive result ?

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.

I do not like this common practice, especially when it concerns such important clauses that include termination of the account.

The fact that it is "common" does not make it right. The fact that one ISP is coming clean about it shows they believe it is important and they deserve praise for their honesty.

And we can discuss a bit about the AUP that you agree to. You do realize hat they say they could change without notice the AUP at any time ? That time could be in extreme cases the time in between you read it and you click on the checkbox. Do you still believe it is a valid agreement ?

No, that's YOUR argument.
I'm trying to show you how that is an unrealistic, one would say naive belief, not supported at all in real life. Legally, they're covered*. That's real life.

*note that they legally had to disclose the cap, not advertise it. You would think they'd have been forced to advertise it since the lawyers were all warmed up on the runway and everything.

quote:

---

You do realize hat they say they could change without notice the AUP at any time?

---

Yes, because I read them. In fact, as a business user I read and signed a legally binding contract for three years of service. The contract had 1 sentence that said basically signing the contract means I read and agree to the AUP. Which I did.

The logic is simple. You're buying a service. Either buy it or don't.

I notice you still have yet to answer my simple yes/no question. I'd like you to try and answer that for me, please.

Which one ?

"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."

Yes.

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

It is common practice. I consider it dishonest if not clearly disclosed on advertisements on important clauses.

Edit..

So, you agree but don't like it.

Cool. Change the laws and get back to me.

Will do.

speaking of laws
We need to make a law that internet service be la cart (and that caps on hard wired connections be illegal

and while we're at it make it so that they can't require an SMC gateway to get statics (very narrow law but come on)

I think I need a source for this one.

I need a source for this one, too. What I've heard from Verizon has always been couched in the "for now" and "no plans" present. They've always and intentionally left the future unclear.

Uverse source - DSLR

»AT&T Makes New 18Mbps U-Verse Tier Official