how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1
2 edits | The Factual Basis of the "Cap" We have gotten very far away from the factual basis of the cap, so let's review the actual document:
»myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/···tAVC.pdf
For those that are reading-challenged:
1) There is no cap.
2) Comcast is required to set a level of usage BELOW which Comcast will take no action against a customer for excessive use.
3) Comcast can change that level whenever it wants, including decreasing, increase, or eliminating it, or creating bandwidth tiers.
4) There is no mention of a bandwidth meter.
So enough of the 250GB cap already. It doesn't exist.
Edit: I should have pointed out that this applies to Florida only, although Comcast seems to have added the words required by this agreement to its national TOS.
Added subtopic title for highlighting in first post. ~sorto' | |
|   joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by K Patterson:So enough of the 250GB cap already. It doesn't exist. The letter Comcast sent me regarding the cap, was I dreaming? Will I wake up next to Suzanne Pleshette? | |
| | AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by joetaxpayer:The letter Comcast sent me regarding the cap, was I dreaming? Will I wake up next to Suzanne Pleshette? Out of curiosity, is this a letter you recently received? | |
| | K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1
1 edit | Suzanne Pleshette? Dang, you must be as old as me.
Let us know about the letter, what it said, when and how it was received.
Thanks,
Edit: Impeccable taste, however. | |
| | | joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by K Patterson:Let us know about the letter, what it said, when and how it was received. Via email! (I am 46, and killed many brain cells playing "hi Bob" in college.)
Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer,
We appreciate your business and strive to provide you with the best online experience possible. One of the ways we do this is through our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). The AUP outlines acceptable use of our service as well as steps we take to protect our customers from things that can negatively impact their experience online. This policy has been in place for many years and we update it periodically to keep it current with our customers’ use of our service.
On October 1, 2008, we will post an updated AUP that will go into effect at that time.
In the updated AUP, we clarify that monthly data (or bandwidth) usage of more than 250 Gigabytes (GB) is the specific threshold that defines excessive use of our service. We have an excessive use policy because a fraction of one percent of our customers use such a disproportionate amount of bandwidth every month that they may degrade the online experience of other customers.
250 GB/month is an extremely large amount of bandwidth and it’s very likely that your monthly data usage doesn't even come close to that amount. In fact, the threshold is approximately 100 times greater than the typical or median residential customer usage, which is 2 to 3 GB/month. To put it in perspective, to reach 250 GB of data usage in one month a customer would have to do any one of the following:
* Send more than 50 million plain text emails (at 5 KB/email);
* Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song); or
* Download 125 standard definition movies (at 2 GB/movie).
And online gamers should know that even the heaviest multi- or single-player gaming activity would not typically come close to this threshold over the course of a month.
In addition to modifying the excessive use policy, the updated AUP contains other clarifications of terms concerning reporting violations, newsgroups, and network management. To read some helpful FAQs, please visit »help.comcast.net/content/faq/Fre···sive-Use. | |
| | | | AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Thanks for posting the e-mail, on my part I mistook your original statement. To me it sounded like you had received a letter regarding excessive usage from your account - aka, the warning. | |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
4 edits | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" Here's something else for you to think about, because you're clearly mistaken:
»help.comcast.net/content/faq/Fre···sive-Use
quoting from it:
How does monthly data usage threshold change Comcast's policy on excessive use?
Comcast's overall policy on excessive use remains the same ;the only change is that Comcast now provides a monthly data usage threshold starting on October 1, 2008. By providing a specific monthly data usage threshold, Comcast is providing greater clarity to its customers about excessive use.
Why did Comcast choose 250 GB as its data usage threshold?
250GB is far beyond the current median of data usage for a typical residential Internet customer in a month, so this amount of data accommodates any reasonable definition of typical monthly residential usage.
To reach 250 GB in a month, for example, a customer would have to do any of the following:
Send 50 million plain text emails (at 5KB/email)
Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song)
Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo)
What is normal or typical use?
Data usage changes over time as Comcast's customers use the Internet and the services and applications available for it. Currently, the median data usage by Comcast High-Speed Internet customers is approximately 2 - 4GB each month (these numbers may vary on a monthly basis). This reflects typical residential use of the service for purposes such as sending and receiving e-mail, surfing the Internet, and watching streaming video.
--------
So there is a cap... just as there has always been...
Notice how they say "Median" instead of "Average". Median means that half of the users are above 2-4 GB and the other half are below 2-4 GB.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
I bet you that the average is significantly higher than that, but I guess that's something they don't want us to know. It's clear to me that they are trying to justify the cap based on the "Median", and that they are disregarding what the average use really is. Instead they are associating "typical" with "median", and not "average". But I guess that's the language they speak in Comcast Town.
You can't tell me that given all of the growth in online media streaming, remote access, video chatting, and online backup that "Median" usage is still 2-4 GB.... and not to mention the "Average".
Jeezus... one HD online movie will practically put you at their so called "Median" all by itself... without including any other "incidental" residential use.... but I guess that half of Comcast's users have never actually done any of that kind of stuff.
Oh the horror of it all... People actually using bandwidth.
From their press release:
»www.comcast.com/About/PressRelea···PRID=814
As part of the wideband deployment, Comcast will launch two new premium speed tiers to its residential and business class customers. Both services are ideal for households or businesses simultaneously using several computers or Internet-connected devices. They also will appeal to those who simply want some of the fastest speeds available in the U.S. today:
New Residential Tiers
• Extreme 50, offering up to 50 Mbps of downstream speed and up to 10 Mbps of upstream speed at $139.95/month.*
• Ultra, offering up to 22 Mbps of downstream speed and up to 5 Mbps of upstream speed at $62.95/month.*
With Extreme 50, Comcast customers, for example, will be able to download a high-def movie (6 GB) in about 16 minutes, a standard-def movie (2 GB) in about 5 minutes and a standard-def TV show (300 MB) in a matter of seconds. Customers with Extreme 50 also will be able to download digital photos, songs and games faster than ever.
---
Notice the figures that they give for the sizes of the files, which can easily put one person, and even more likely, residential family, over the median usage they give in their Cap FAQ... Genius move Comcast. I guess half of your customers don't actually do any of this stuff at all. 
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" No sir, I am not wrong. Here's the legal language.:
2. Comcast may continue to notify any residential high speed Internet service subscriber whose bandwidth usage use exceeds the Threshold (as determined by Comcast in its sole discretion) that the subscriber’s service may be, or will be, terminated as the result of excessive use. However, no residential high speed Internet service subscriber shall be notified of a breach of Comcast’s excessive use restrictions unless the subscriber’s bandwidth usage exceeds the previously disclosed Threshold. | |
| | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" Yes... you are wrong.
1) There is no cap.
---> Yes there is... We just know that at 250GB, you've reached the point where Comcast can cut you off at their discretion. If you go above that, you use it at your own risk. That seems like a cap to prevent "excessive use" to me. I guess you feel differently.
2) Comcast is required to set a level of usage BELOW which Comcast will take no action against a customer for excessive use.
---> Looks like they've done that.
3) Comcast can change that level whenever it wants, including decreasing, increase, or eliminating it, or creating bandwidth tiers.
---> Good for them.
4) There is no mention of a bandwidth meter.
---> I'm not sure why that's relevant, but here's where they say they're working on one: »help.comcast.net/content/faq/Fre···sive-Use
How does Comcast help its customers track their usage so they can avoid exceeding the limit?
We are in the process of creating a usage meter that will measure consumption for the Comcast account which will be available in the coming months. In the meantime, we offer a meter for free with our McAfee security suite available at »security.comcast.net/
--->Seems to me that that process is becoming longer and longer... but why rush when you don't have to. Those Comcast Town ads are really important... and it's feel good PR!
So enough of the 250GB cap already. It doesn't exist
---> It sure does to me, and many others here. If you're comfortable with accepting Comcast's wiggle-room statements, then I guess you can believe it does not exist.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by K Patterson:So enough of the 250GB cap already. It doesn't exist. Oh, but it does in the minds of the public. Comcast could have opted to end its program of calling the top 1,000 users, and make the service truly cap-free. It could (and should) still call users whose usage is truly interfering with the operation of a node.
It could also have kept its teir speed at levels that it could deliver and stopped selling in overtaxed areas. It created its own crisis!
The 250 GB limit is wholly unnecessary and is not just harmful to Comcast, but to the 'net.
I've continued to call on Comcast to be a leader for positive change and preservation of 'net freedom. This wasn't a good example.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| |  DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" ya if its going to be a soft cap then whats the point?
its still basicly 2 calls in 6 months and your out
if they would just be a dumb pipe and get over themselfs they could have avoided the bad PR | |
| | | |
|  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| said by funchords:The 250 GB limit is wholly unnecessary and is not just harmful to Comcast, but to the 'net. Should we expect to see bank foreclosure notices on "the 'net" sometime soon as a result of this?
People said Y2K was going to be the end of the world as well, yet somehow we worked through it and we're still here.
"The 'net" has faced bigger obstacles than this, namely the continuing depletion of our available IPv4 address pool. We've worked around it by converting to classless interdomain routing (VLSM), liberal use of NAT to reduce public address consumption, and numbering authorities around the world requiring justification for address block allocations (complete with audits on actual address space use).
This isn't going to break "the 'net" -- it's just going to force people to work smarter with the resources they have. | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" "Harmful" doesn't mean "deadly."  | |
| | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
1 edit | Well, I guess we'll all deal by streaming lower quality video... or less of it.
As I said before, every day that goes by, the 250 GB cap gets you less and less of the internet and less and less for your dollar.
Compare that to hard drives where you get more for your dollar every day.
Want an even better example? Flash memory...
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | | | joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" said by IPPlanMan:As I said before, every day that goes by, the 250 GB cap gets you less and less of the internet and less and less for your dollar. So, given my triple bell hypothesis, I suspect they will closely track the middle one as it shifts, and the 250GB will adjust more or less to some multiple of that.
On a lighter note - I called NetFlix, live person in 10 seconds. She said her co-workers were telling her 1GB/hr for NetFlix HD. (I am quoting her, I expect that someone with a good meter on their router can verify or deny)
The hard drive pricing in $/byte makes a remarkable graph on semilog scale. The oldest drive I recall buying was $450/GB, the most recent, 10 cents per GB. | |
| | | |  EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | said by IPPlanMan:Compare that to hard drives where you get more for your dollar every day. Want an even better example? Flash memory... Irrational comparisons.. | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" said by EG:said by IPPlanMan:Compare that to hard drives where you get more for your dollar every day. Want an even better example? Flash memory... Irrational comparisons.. Maybe he should make then "rational" comparisons as in cell phone usage where for the same price I get more airtime every year. How about that ?
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
| | | | | | EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" said by sturmvogel:Maybe he should make then "rational" comparisons as in cell phone usage where for the same price I get more airtime every year. How about that ? That's better   | |
| | | | | | joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by sturmvogel:Maybe he should make then "rational" comparisons as in cell phone usage where for the same price I get more airtime every year. How about that ? The comparison wasn't irrational, just not 100% valid.
Moore's law, regarding silicon performance per dollar, implies greater power in technology devices. So I see where the comparison is made.
With all the dark fiber out there, you'd imagine the backbone can be improved 100X. | |
| | | | | | | DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" and it was valid
as we get more powerfull chips from smaller silicon we also make chips that can do more data over wan links
their working on 100Gbit fiber as we speak (for internet backbone use)
plust theres tons of dark fiber that could easily be pluged into routers and switches to impove the backbone 1000X+
and then is the OC192 lines had the transivers replaced with OC768 then those links would be 4 times faster rhight there
then in a few years when 100G is stable and good then upgrade the OC768 to 100G
so 100G+dark Fiber+ upgrading all fiber backbone links to top speed fiber would provide so much bandwidth they wouldn't know what to do with it
then feed CO/CMTS with an oc768 and you'd be at the lastmile bottle neck
then after D3 gold standard equ gets here things would be awsome | |
| | | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" Comcast is sellling the possibility of speed, and the Cap lets them sell speed, even as ridiculous as it sounds to have a 50/10 connection and a 250GB cap. How about having a 100/20 connection with the same cap? Sound ridiculous yet? So the cap lets them sell this "speed", as useless as it is over 250GB anyway.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | | | | | | | EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | said by DarkLogix:so 100G+dark Fiber+ upgrading all fiber backbone links to top speed fiber would provide so much bandwidth they wouldn't know what to do with it I think that "they" will find some use for it.. | |
| | | | | | | | | DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" said by EG:said by DarkLogix:so 100G+dark Fiber+ upgrading all fiber backbone links to top speed fiber would provide so much bandwidth they wouldn't know what to do with it I think that "they" will find some use for it.. yes and I want that bandwidth | |
|
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by EG:said by IPPlanMan:Compare that to hard drives where you get more for your dollar every day. Want an even better example? Flash memory... Irrational comparisons.. Bald response.. (why?)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | | | | | EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9
1 edit | Re: The Factual Basis of the "Cap" Double post deleted. | |
| | | | | | |
| |
|
(topic move) Mean, Median, and Standard Deviations of usage leve
