dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
19341
Expand your moderator at work

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

2 edits

r81984 to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon

Re: The dreaded call from Comcast

I speak common sense and the reality of caps and comcast.
These people spew made up assumptions, lie about statistics/math, and bring up TOS garbage created by comcast as some kind of evidence that caps have a genuine network purpose. Great job comcast on the marketing, it worked on these people. Comcast can do what it wants, it is a monopoly.

The issues is that us consumers need to stop comcast from using caps.
Comcast will tell you they use caps to help with network congestion which is 100% a lie.

The OP went over 250GB with his normal usage. Every day more and more people will go over the 250GB. I will laugh when one of the comcast drones on here get banned from comcast for 1 year only becuase they found a new online high bandwidth service they liked.
As the internet developes, do you think the caps will also???

To prevent limiting of the internet we need to get rid of caps.
If the monopoly ISPs won't do it on their own then we need net neutrality laws to ban caps.

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

1 edit

JohnInSJ to r81984

Premium Member

to r81984
said by r81984:

The TOS say so, case closed right????
Yeah, that's what commercial service providers get to do. They get to define what the service is that they offer FOR SALE.
Expand your moderator at work

C_Chipperson
Monster Rain
Premium Member
join:2009-01-17
00000

C_Chipperson to r81984

Premium Member

to r81984

Re: The dreaded call from Comcast

said by r81984:

...we need to get rid of caps.
If the monopoly ISPs won't do it on their own then we need net neutrality laws to ban caps.
We need less legislation and government, not more. In your utopian world where "net neutrality laws ban caps", what happens is the cost of upgrading the network to "unlimited" capacity is passed on to the users. Ironic that your signature speaks of being fiscally conservative eh?

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

JohnInSJ to r81984

Premium Member

to r81984
said by r81984:

Comcast can do what it wants, it is a monopoly.
Confusion #1 - Comcast can do what it wants becase it's a for-profit business
Comcast will tell you they use caps to help with network congestion which is 100% a lie.
Confusion #2 - Comcast does not tell you this anywhere. Caps have nothing to do with congestion, they enforce the usage model that pricing is based on.
The OP went over 250GB with his normal usage.
Confusion #3 - The OP has 5 users sharing 1 consumer connection. All 5 are using "normal usage", so the total is, amazing as it seems, much more than the normal usage for a consumer connection.

It's nice that you laid out all your confusions in one post - kinda a nice recap of the whole endless discussion.

And as always I will once more remind you that comcast does offer a product line with soft caps that are much much higher than their consumer offering. You are free to choose that if you happen to be one of the 1% who need it.
jus10
join:2009-08-04
Gainesville, VA

jus10 to r81984

Member

to r81984
said by r81984:

To prevent limiting of the internet we need to get rid of caps. If the monopoly ISPs won't do it on their own then we need net neutrality laws to ban caps.
I think it would make more sense to foster some actual competition between ISPs. Because caps aren't the only issue here and frankly in the net neutrality debate, they are one of the lesser evils.

Honestly you seem to be on a bit of an angry rant from the pulpit. While I can certainly appreciate your need to do that, I don't think you're going to accomplish anything other than perhaps making yourself feel better.

I'm a pretty heavy "power user". I Netflix stream, I have Linux torrents, etc. I'm still only using around 50 gig a month. 5 of me could share one connection and still be under the limit. There will be a day, probably not long into the future where 250 gig is not enough. But we can complain about that and petition to change that when we get to that point.

nerdburg
Premium Member
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA

nerdburg to r81984

Premium Member

to r81984
Comcast will tell you they use caps to help with network congestion which is 100% a lie.
Comcast Network Management FAQ:

How is [congestion management] related to the recent 250 GB monthly usage threshold?

The two are completely separate and distinct. The...congestion management technique is based on real-time Internet activity.... The technique is different from the recent announcement that 250 GB/month is the aggregate monthly usage threshold that defines excessive use.


»customer.comcast.com/Pag ··· BA43#p2p

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 edit

NormanS to r81984

MVM

to r81984
said by r81984:

I speak common sense and the reality of caps and comcast.
You speak wishful thinking.
These people spew made up assumptions, lie about statistics/math ...
Speak for yourself. But I know how entities which have employed me applies statistics. Your understanding of statistics appears to be a fantasy.

I have told no lies. You are paying for "gallons per minute of delivery", which is not the same as the number of gallons per month you may take for the money you pay.
... Great job comcast on the marketing, it worked on these people.
Comcast does not market their caps. Where does Comcast marketing even come into this debate?
Comcast can do what it wants, it is a monopoly.
Not where I live. I am not a Comcast employee, nor even a Comcast customer. I even get heckled by a certain Comcast shill because I prefer the lower cost of slower DSL.
The issues is that us consumers need to stop comcast from using caps.
But you don't run the company.
Comcast will tell you they use caps to help with network congestion which is 100% a lie.
Your silly belief that speed = volume actually harms your underlying position on caps. So let me tell you how to "get it right". Forget about the silly idea that speed is somehow equivalent to volume; it is not. Try this one, instead:
quote:
Comcast is not just an ISP (Internet Service Provider). They are also a "content provider". Primarily in delivery of television programming over cable. That was their initial business, and still their core business. They have also taken advantage of some changes in law to provide telephony service in competition with the ILECS.

FWIW, AT&T is also not just an ISP. They are also a telephony company. Primarily as an ILEC, delivering voice communications over copper pair. That was their initial business, and, via wireless, still their core business. Through certain advances in technology they have also undertaken to compete with the MSOs to provide IPTV (U-verse).

Each (which together are a "duopoly" where I live) are gearing up to provide certain content, which is similar to content provided by Google (YoutTube), Hulu, Veoh, and others.

Caps are an anti competitive measure, designed to keep their entertainment revenue stream up by keeping their subscribers from going "out of band" to get their entertainment.

It is a much more plausible argument than, "speed = volume".

P.S. Referring to your opponents as "liars", especially in the face of evidence which contradicts your claim, is the logical fallacy of, "ad hominen": You can't deny their claim, so you attempt to allege their "evil intent".

del ftl
@algx.net

del ftl to sjc1204

Anon

to sjc1204
This thread reminds me of the state webmail services were in several years ago. You basically had hotmail and yahoo and both let you have as many emails as you wanted but limited your mailbox size to like 2MB or you could pay monthly 'overages' and get a 25MB mailbox.

Along came gmail. Everyone (and i mean absolutely everyone) could not believe that Google could (let alone would) give 1GB email space. Like it was a huge april fools joke. Google couldnt possibly afford to give all users that much space. They are a for profit company. blah blah blah.

So along comes this competition, blows the others out of the water. And what happens? All of the sudden hotmail and yahoo can afford to give users a higher cap. Magically and without significant quarter busting cost increases to the company. Nearly overnight. And today guess what the caps are even higher. Google uses an ever increasing cap around 7GB. Hotmail has ever growing around 5GB. And yahoo's is unlimited. Does anybody complain about webmail space anymore?

Is there anyone today who feels like they could or would use a webmail box that is 2MB or even 25MB capped?

It'll never happen but one has to wonder what comcast would do if a competitor came in and offered same (or better) services without a cap. I can tell you what would happen. It would magically disappear and become no longer relevant, or it would magically increase to 500GB or 1TB a month with no significant costs incurred by Comcast or rate hikes to consumers.

But alas we live in such a market where there is virtually no broadband competition that would cause the market to change like that.

*disclaimer, yes i know webmail and broadband markets are different with different costs and issues. I only post to say that if comcast was so inclined to increase or remove the cap, they could and would do so with ease.

nerdburg
Premium Member
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA

nerdburg

Premium Member

It'll never happen but one has to wonder what comcast would do if a competitor came in and offered same (or better) services without a cap. I can tell you what would happen. It would magically disappear and become no longer relevant, or it would magically increase to 500GB or 1TB a month with no significant costs incurred by Comcast or rate hikes to consumers.
DSL, U-verse, FiOS, dial-up etc already compete with Comcast.
jus10
join:2009-08-04
Gainesville, VA

jus10

Member

said by nerdburg:

DSL, U-verse, FiOS, dial-up etc already compete with Comcast.
DSL doesn't have the range and dial-up not the bandwidth to be considered a competitor to Comcast. U-verse, FiOS and Cable are it. And the competition between those 3 is minimal. AT&T is clueless, FiOS stopped building and Cable is well, still just Cable and trying to bundle in useless garbage (although I think I found away around that if I switch to Starter Business - Maybe after they official support the 6120 I'll switch).

Comcast is not terrible. Surely it would be worse to be in an area served by TWC. Or in some place which doesn't even offer broadband (not that I would ever consider living in such a place). But folks still dream of uncapped gigabit fiber to their door for $20/month. I'm not saying that's a rational dream ...

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to del ftl

MVM

to del ftl
The problem is that nobody who offers "Last Mile" Internet connections is "just an ISP". Most are also content providers; and they don't want to lose their TV subscribers to Internet services that don't contribute to their bottom line.

Those who offer TCP/IP transport to the Internet, and not much else, don't have access (for the most part) to the "Last Mile" infrastructure; and the margins are too slim for them to try.
NormanS

NormanS to jus10

MVM

to jus10
said by jus10:

DSL doesn't have the range and dial-up not the bandwidth to be considered a competitor to Comcast. U-verse, FiOS and Cable are it.
Sorry, U-verse is DSL.
jus10
join:2009-08-04
Gainesville, VA

jus10

Member

said by NormanS:

Sorry, U-verse is DSL.
Ooops. As you can tell I don't live in AT&T territory. I thought it was FTTH.

I agree with your previous post though on the conflict of interest between ISPs/Content producers. "Innovation" always seems to be robbing Peter to pay Paul at these companies. So they're not terribly inclined to do that.

nerdburg
Premium Member
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA

nerdburg

Premium Member

I think the cap is a non-issue for most customers. I've never even had a customer ask me about the cap. My feeling is that 99% of them don't know or care about the cap.

del ftl
@algx.net

del ftl to nerdburg

Anon

to nerdburg
said by nerdburg:

It'll never happen but one has to wonder what comcast would do if a competitor came in and offered same (or better) services without a cap. I can tell you what would happen. It would magically disappear and become no longer relevant, or it would magically increase to 500GB or 1TB a month with no significant costs incurred by Comcast or rate hikes to consumers.
DSL, U-verse, FiOS, dial-up etc already compete with Comcast.
Yes and yahoo, aol mail, netscape mail and a few others also competed with hotmail. I already stated this. All I'm saying is that say if google came in and wired your neighborhood and offered the exact same speed tiers at a lower price and without a cap. Magically you'd see comcast match without any significant issues period.

They dont have the cap there because it's the only way they can hold profits, or keep their network managed. Anyone who thinks so is delusional. I will say however that 250GB is pretty generous and should be enough for most users. But we all thought the same thing when gmail offer 1GB. And all they've done is go up from there.
del ftl

del ftl to NormanS

Anon

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

and the margins are too slim for them to try.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying except that many analysts and shareholders would have said the same thing about google if they knew google was going into the webmail business.

The fact is that google has said they are going to enter the isp market. Do you think that if they entered in your city and threw a "gmail" on your internet market (gigabit speed and no or very high cap), comcast and verizon (or whoever) would just pack up and leave because there's no margins and they'd just lose money?

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 edit

NormanS

MVM

said by del ftl :

The fact is that google has said they are going to enter the isp market.
Where have they said this? It is my understanding that Google fiber is just some kind of test; but they are not planning to overbuild current ISPs.

P.S.:

»Google Invites AT&T, Comcast, Verizon To Fiber Party

From which:
quote:
... Google has no plans to become a national ISP.

Expand your moderator at work

del ftl
@algx.net

del ftl to NormanS

Anon

to NormanS

Re: The dreaded call from Comcast

said by NormanS:

said by del ftl :

The fact is that google has said they are going to enter the isp market.
Where have they said this? It is my understanding that Google fiber is just some kind of test; but they are not planning to overbuild current ISPs.

P.S.:

»Google Invites AT&T, Comcast, Verizon To Fiber Party

From which:
quote:
... Google has no plans to become a national ISP.

You may be interested to note that Verizon, quest, comcast, att, etc.. have almost always been offered to provide service over fiber builds. Of which they have turned down every single offer. (with the exception of ATT which offered service on utopia briefly but only because it was outside att's normal market). So when Google invites them it's merely a formality that is very unlikely to lead to anything. What you can expect to see is other companies stepping in.

It's an irrelevant point however as it ignores what the heart of the issue is which is that if/when someone pulls a gmail on the broadband industry, the carriers will adapt magically and easily as if they could have offered a 1TB (or whatever) cap all along (which i'm sure they can).

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

Your silly belief that speed = volume actually harms your underlying position on caps. So let me tell you how to "get it right". Forget about the silly idea that speed is somehow equivalent to volume; it is not. Try this one, instead:
That is not my belief.
As I said before in a certain period of time speed limits volume and volume can limit speed. If you can't understand something so simple then I just don't know what to say.

A 250GB monthly cap limits you to a 768kbps average speed for the month. If you use your connection 24/7 then you are limited to 768kbps. You can download faster only when you use your connection less. It is not hard to understand this.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

said by r81984:

A 250GB monthly cap limits you to a 768kbps average speed for the month. If you use your connection 24/7 then you are limited to 768kbps. You can download faster only when you use your connection less. It is not hard to understand this.
Ok, I think we all can do the math.
If you'd rather have a 768 connection, many providers can do that....however MOST of us don't want to wait all day for some important download (important to us, no matter is it's work, kids photos, IPTV or porn) even if it's just once a day/week/month.
your Idea of capping the speed to match the maximum monthly allotment, doesn't meet the needs or desires of the vast majority of users.

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

JohnInSJ to r81984

Premium Member

to r81984
said by r81984:

You can download faster only when you use your connection less. It is not hard to understand this.
Yes, it is, because it is totally wrong.

You can use your connection full out 24/7 for a whole month. Then you need to find a new ISP, because COMCAST DOES NOT THROTTLE YOUR SPEED TO PREVENT YOU FROM VIOLATING THE TOS.

You can use your connection any way you want. If you, like 99% of other comcast subs, don't use 250GB in a month, you can use it for more then one month.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 edit

NormanS to r81984

MVM

to r81984
said by r81984:

That is not my belief.
Yes it is.
As I said before in a certain period of time speed limits volume and volume can limit speed. If you can't understand something so simple then I just don't know what to say.
IF Comcast was billing you for 250 GB per month, then you make that argument. But they are not billing you by volume, they are billing you by speed. You can download at 12 Mb/s, or more, until you hit the cap. Whatever speed your bill says you are paying for.
A 250GB monthly cap limits you to a 768kbps average speed for the month.
It does not. It only limits you to 250 GBytes of data per month.
If you use your connection 24/7 then you are limited to 768kbps.
Counting for work breaks, sleep breaks, eat breaks, shower breaks, toilet breaks, and sex breaks (among other things), there is no way I can use my connection 24/7. I have a life in the real world.
You can download faster only when you use your connection less. It is not hard to understand this.
The point is, you are not paying for volume, you are paying for speed. It is not hard to understand this.
Expand your moderator at work

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to JohnInSJ

Premium Member

to JohnInSJ

Re: The dreaded call from Comcast

said by JohnInSJ:

You can use your connection full out 24/7 for a whole month. Then you need to find a new ISP, because COMCAST DOES NOT THROTTLE YOUR SPEED TO PREVENT YOU FROM VIOLATING THE TOS.

You can use your connection any way you want. If you, like 99% of other comcast subs, don't use 250GB in a month, you can use it for more then one month.
Wrong? How so???

If you use over 250GB in a month more than once you will be banned for 1 year. Which means use your 50mbps connection to the max for about 1/2 of a day and you can get banned.
They want YOU to throttle your speed or be banned.

Also Comcast does throttle speeds if your node is congested, but that is another topic.
r81984

r81984 to del ftl

Premium Member

to del ftl
said by del ftl :

This thread reminds me of the state webmail services were in several years ago. You basically had hotmail and yahoo and both let you have as many emails as you wanted but limited your mailbox size to like 2MB or you could pay monthly 'overages' and get a 25MB mailbox.

Along came gmail. Everyone (and i mean absolutely everyone) could not believe that Google could (let alone would) give 1GB email space. Like it was a huge april fools joke. Google couldnt possibly afford to give all users that much space. They are a for profit company. blah blah blah.

So along comes this competition, blows the others out of the water. And what happens? All of the sudden hotmail and yahoo can afford to give users a higher cap. Magically and without significant quarter busting cost increases to the company. Nearly overnight. And today guess what the caps are even higher. Google uses an ever increasing cap around 7GB. Hotmail has ever growing around 5GB. And yahoo's is unlimited. Does anybody complain about webmail space anymore?

Is there anyone today who feels like they could or would use a webmail box that is 2MB or even 25MB capped?

It'll never happen but one has to wonder what comcast would do if a competitor came in and offered same (or better) services without a cap. I can tell you what would happen. It would magically disappear and become no longer relevant, or it would magically increase to 500GB or 1TB a month with no significant costs incurred by Comcast or rate hikes to consumers.

But alas we live in such a market where there is virtually no broadband competition that would cause the market to change like that.

*disclaimer, yes i know webmail and broadband markets are different with different costs and issues. I only post to say that if comcast was so inclined to increase or remove the cap, they could and would do so with ease.
At least you understand reality.