dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
31

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

SpaethCo to sturmvogel6

MVM

to sturmvogel6

Re: Doubtful Comcast will ever release the bandwidth meter

said by sturmvogel6:

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

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

sturmvogel6

Member

said by SpaethCo:

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 ?

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

1 edit

DarkLogix

Premium Member

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

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

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
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.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by sturmvogel6:

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.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

said by JohnInSJ:
said by sturmvogel6:

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.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 recommendation

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by sturmvogel6:

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.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

sturmvogel6

Member

said by JohnInSJ:
said by sturmvogel6:

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).

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 recommendation

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

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?

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

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?
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 ?

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

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.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

sturmvogel6

Member

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.
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.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

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?

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

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?
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.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 edit

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

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

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

3 edits

sturmvogel6

Member

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
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.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

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?

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

sturmvogel6

Member

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?
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 ?

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by sturmvogel6:

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.
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.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

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.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

Edit..

So, you agree but don't like it.

Cool. Change the laws and get back to me.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 recommendation

sturmvogel6

Member

said by JohnInSJ:

Edit..

So, you agree but don't like it.

Cool. Change the laws and get back to me.
Will do.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

1 edit

DarkLogix

Premium Member

said by sturmvogel6:

said by JohnInSJ:

... 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)

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to JohnInSJ

MVM

to JohnInSJ
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...
I think I need a source for this one.
funchords

funchords to JohnInSJ

MVM

to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

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

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
Uverse source - DSLR

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

JohnInSJ to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
Ok, maybe that is too strong.

This is what I read

»/faq/13323

As usual... no caps, until they decide to add them via their "we can change the AUP"

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to JohnInSJ

MVM

to JohnInSJ
Okay, I misinterpreted what you said, and you said it correctly. This was my error.

(I thought you were saying that Comcast was quietly limited when subscribers were watching HD ... my misread.)

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan to funchords

Member

to funchords
That's still one better than having no clear indication from Comcast that the cap will ever be raised....

Resolutions on cameras and thus the size of the photo files/movies are constantly increasing... That's just one thing that's going to make users more likely to hit the cap.

This is aside from the newly available channels of HD content: iTunes/Netflix Streaming, etc.

Like it or not... the solution is metered billing, just like any other utility that delivers a quantifiable service: Power, Water, Gas.

If you're a usage hog, you pay for what you use. And the provider is able to collect based on that usage and invest in itself so that it can provide an adequate level of service to all.

Comcast, as a de facto monopoly in the cable space, has no interest in investing in itself to support this kind of use the way that the market wants it to. Instead of having a model that would derive revenue from so called "excessive use" or even higher level usage levels through alternative media sources (iTunes/Apple TV, Netflix Streaming, etc), they'd rather use the 250 GB cap to prevent and squash those alternative media sources from taking a foothold and threatening their Cable TV business.

You don't see Verizon doing this with DSL.
You don't see Verizon doing this with Fios.

Comcast is using the Cap to protect their cable division from competition.

Those higher speed Docsis 3.0 tiers are still capped! That's ridiculous, and it shows that that Docsis 3.0 isn't changing a damn thing.

Getting these Docsis 3.0 tiers is like buying a Ferrari with a 1 gallon gas tank. It's incredibly expensive too... and are you really going to notice the "speed" over 250GB of usage? I, for one, highly doubt it. You'll just get to your Cap, the same as everyone else.

Yes, it really is that simple. FiOs can't make it here to DC soon enough, and it's music to my ears that the system is being built right now.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 recommendation

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by IPPlanMan:

Comcast, as a de facto monopoly in the cable space, has no interest in investing in itself to support this kind of use the way that the market wants it to.
You keep making this claim - but there's nothing to support it. Download 500GB of linux ISOs. Be a primary torrent seed for every linux distro and serve out several TB of ISOs. You'll negatively impact the node just the same as you would for any other use, and get flagged just the same. Heck, back up several TB of disk to the internet 24/7.

Comcast could give a rat's behind what you use the pipe for, so long as you're not blowing the node.

As has been pointed out before DSL and FiOS don't have that particular congestion issue. They'll run into upstream issues and the caps will come there just as soon as everyone hops on and starts blowing their cost models out of the water too.

Yes, it's really that simple.