dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13934
share rss forum feed

clarknova156

join:2011-06-04
Poughkeepsie, NY
reply to CableTool

Re: [Caps] Please sign the petition to raise or eliminate the ca

Then imagine a family of 5 sharing that only watching maybe a few hours a week each , that's JUST watching Netflix , not downloading or doing anything else.

Its easy to see why these caps are just stop gap solutions to prevent people from canceling there TV service outright and not just streaming online whatever they want.



Old Oscar

@snet.net
reply to nerdburg

Performance Starter
Downloads up to 6Mbps, uploads up to 1Mbps.
$49.95 per month

Performance
Downloads up to 20 Mbps, uploads up to 4 Mbps with PowerBoost®
$48.95 per month

Blast
Downloads up to 16 Mbps, uploads up to 2 Mbps with PowerBoost®.
$58.95 per month

So, do brain dead choose "Blast" over "Performance?"

Or do they choose "Performance Starter" over "Performance?"

Oh, wait, I got redirected when doing a "goto previous page"
where "performance starter is gone:
»www.comcast.com/shop/buyflow2/pr···Inflow=1

Tired of this BS.

So, what is the max download per month for these different
plans?

I have difficulty believing that the speed of downloads
is different by a factor of 8 and yet the maximum
is the same.

Of course, there is nowhere stated that I can find
what is the maximum download.

Keep in mind that 3 telvisions using per day about
25 hours of time at MPEG2 means about 2 GB hourly,
which amounts to about 1500 GB per month.

Yet internet connection is limited to 250 GB per month.

Does anybody get "it?"



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

1 recommendation

An article on the Digital Trends site today about ISP data caps:

Are bandwidth caps about easing congestion, or protecting television?
Digital Trends - February 16, 2012
»www.digitaltrends.com/computing/···evision/


GTFan

join:2004-12-03

1 recommendation

Had to LOL at one of the paras in that article:

The idea that usage caps are a blunt, inaccurate tool to control network congestion is not new. However, the CEO of the mid-sized ISP Sonic.net has recently thrown a new notion into the mix: what if those data caps are about protecting ISPs television businesses?

New notion? Seriously? What planet have you been on?

Pretty good article otherwise, thanks for posting.



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

Hope Comcast doesn't try doing this, even though it's just for TWC's "Essentials Broadband" plan right now:

Time Warner Cable Revives Usage-Based Internet Plan, But Now It's Optional
'Essentials Broadband' Service Capped at 5 GB Monthly for $5 Off
Multichannel News - February 27, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/article/481···onal.php

"Three years after Time Warner Cable tried to test usage-based broadband billing -- and backed off after a furious outcry from customers and elected officials -- the MSO is launching an optional plan in southern Texas capped at 5 Gigabytes per month.

The operator is pitching the "Essentials Broadband" plan as a way to save money: Customers with Standard, Basic and Lite broadband packages will receive $5 off per month if they stay under the 5 GB ceiling. However, they could pay up to an additional $25 per month if they exceed the usage limit."



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

An article on the TWC usage-based plan with more details on the Light Reading Cable site:

Usage-Based Broadband Returns to TW Cable
Light Reading Cable - February 27, 2012
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···r_cable&

"Subscribers who opt in to the Essentials Broadband plan can consume five gigabytes per month before being charged $1 per GB above that threshold, not to exceed $25 per month. They would get access to a meter that tracks their usage at granularities from hourly up to monthly. TW Cable is also providing a 60-day or two-billing-cycle grace period before charging for overages, and customers can switch back to an unlimited broadband tier at any time."



Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up

join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
reply to Les Data

Incoming (MBytes)12398 Outgoing (MBytes)598
(from my Wrt status page)

I with you on this I rarly use over 25G even with using Itunes and Hulu. There something about a little thing call discipline.



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

From a cable news round-up item on the Light Reading Cable site this morning (»www.lightreading.com/document.as···r_cable& ):

The Last Days of Unlimited Broadband?
February 28, 2012

"Some potential fallout from Time Warner Cable Inc.'s new usage-based pricing policy on broadband leads off today's cable news roundup.

Time Warner Cable's return to usage-based pricing (UBP) for broadband, using an gentler, optional policy targeted to its lighter users, could provide a blueprint for the rest of the U.S. cable industry and portend higher rates for unlimited broadband tiers, predicts Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Inc. analyst Craig Moffett, in a research note issued Wednesday. He likens the move to a toe-in-the-water approach, because it familiarizes customers to the UBP concept without foisting it on everyone (TW Cable has pledged to always offer an unlimited, all-you-can eat option), but paves the way for such programs "to become the rule rather than the exception." He surmises that the new usage-based program could cause some cost-conscious consumers to defect to DSL, but expects the competitive effects to be minimal.

ISI Group Inc. analyst Vijay Jayant doesn't expect all other MSOs to follow overnight with policies similar to the one TW Cable has launched in southern Texas, but views it as a "meaningful 'shot across the bow.'" TW Cable's decision to flex its pricing muscle also shows that broadband is becoming "one of life's greatest necessities, not luxuries.""



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

A detailed article on the TWC usage-based plan on the FierceCable site:

Time Warner Cable rolls usage-based billing option in southern Texas, testing waters for broader launch
FierceCable - February 28, 2012
»www.fiercecable.com/story/time-w···12-02-28

"As online video products from Netflix, Amazon, Apple and other providers continue to gain popularity--and make it easier for cable subscribers to drop premium cable networks (e.g., cord shaving)--other cable MSOs will likely follow Time Warner Cable and Suddenlink with usage-based billing options. Cox Communications recently launched broadband meters, and began warning subscribers that exceed usage allowances. But it hasn't begun charging subscribers who exceed allowances such as 50 gigabytes monthly for its Essential service and 200 gigabytes monthly for its Preferred Internet service."



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

Comcast's CFO says Comcast won't copy Time Warner Cable's move toward usage-based pricing:

Angelakis: No Usage-Based Pricing For Now
Comcast CFO Says Cable Giant Won't Rock The HSD Boat
Multichannel News - February 28, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/article/481···_Now.php

"Comcast chief financial officer Michael Angelakis said the nation's largest MSO won't rock the high-speed data boat with a move toward usage based pricing, but said he admired Time Warner Cable for taking the risk.
"We have a very high customer satisfaction rating and we don't really want to rock the boat on that product,"
:
Angelakis said that Comcast will take a look at the Time Warner Cable offering, but has no plans to replicate it in the near future.
" I give them credit for trying different things," Angelakis said of Time Warner Cable's efforts. "We have real momentum in that business and the goal is to keep it."



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

An article on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website today about Comcast's data cap:

Comcast's clampdown on broadband 'data hogs'
By Jeff Gelles, Philadelphia Inquirer Business Columnist
March 1, 2012
»www.philly.com/philly/business/t···hem.html



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

1 edit

An article on the Broadcasting & Cable site today:

Public Knowledge Asks FCC to Investigate Data-Capped Broadband Plans
Urges FCC to ask why caps are necessary and how consumers are affected by them
Broadcasting & Cable - March 23, 2012
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···lans.php

"On the reports of the new iPad eating into mobile users' data-capped broadband plans big time, Public Knowledge Friday tried to goose the FCC into investigating those data plans.

The FCC has been reluctant to get into the issue of usage-based pricing on either the wired or wireless side beyond pushing for more spectrum to relieve capacity constraints that operators argue are behind the need to charge for heavy users of bandwidth.

"It is simply inexcusable that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not even seen fit to ask wireless and landline carriers to explain why those caps are necessary, how they are set and how consumers are affected by them," said Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn in a statement.

PK twice last year asked the FCC to investigate data caps imposed by Verizon, AT&T on the wireless broadband side and Comcast on the wired."

The press release on PK's site: »www.publicknowledge.org/public-k···%99-dela


lancguy

join:2012-03-25
Lancaster, PA
reply to nerdburg

I can not for the life of me imagine anyone consistently going over the 250 gig limit. Comcast will flag an account abusing the limit and notify the customer of the first infraction. If the customer does it again, then they are warned again. If they go over the limit a third time, then they get blocked for 1 year.

I download a lot of stuff. And I have what use to be the ultra class of service. And I have never gotten even just one warning. In the past two months alone, I have resinstalled my os several times (testing a new build with an i7 3930K.) which required downloading a ton of updates each time. I have also downloaded both the developers preview of windows 8 and the customer preview of same title. I have also added programs and all the updates multiple times. Add to that downloading of some very large newsgroup files. And I still have not hit the limit. Plus I have some games that save in the cloud.

Even my brother with two teenage daughters and heavy music downloads only hit the limit once when one of his daughters was streaming espn on her xbox.

I have heard of people getting hit for the cap, and they are usually exclusively streaming movies and tv or, pirating (music, games, software). Which by the way pirating violates your TOS.

250Gig will give you enough to download at least 1 large program a month, heavy web browsing, and light streaming. So why buck the system. At least it's 250 gig and not 2 gig like AT&T or Verizon for iPads, iPhones, and iPods. And you won't get charged incredibly high overage fees like some wireless companies do.

What I do wish is that instead of cutting a subscriber, they would throttle them down.


dscline

join:2001-09-01
Atlanta, GA

said by lancguy:

I can not for the life of me imagine anyone consistently going over the 250 gig limit.

250Gig will give you enough to download at least 1 large program a month, heavy web browsing, and light streaming.

You say you can't imagine people going over the limit, then you go on to put limits as to what people should be able to do with 250GB. What if someone streams a lot of HD content? You can't imagine someone doing that? Apparently Comcast can, since they've decided to not make bandwidth used for their own Xfinity TV app for the Xbox count towards the cap.


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:3

I'm already at 74% and 65GB to go.


GTFan

join:2004-12-03
reply to lancguy

said by lancguy:

I can not for the life of me imagine anyone consistently going over the 250 gig limit. Comcast will flag an account abusing the limit and notify the customer of the first infraction. If the customer does it again, then they are warned again. If they go over the limit a third time, then they get blocked for 1 year.
I have heard of people getting hit for the cap, and they are usually exclusively streaming movies and tv or, pirating (music, games, software). Which by the way pirating violates your TOS.

Same ole same ole... another user saying that the cap is plenty good enough for him so it should be that way for everybody, and oh by the way if you exceed it you must be a pirate.

Seriously, this stuff gets old.


captastic

@charter.com

I really don't understand the point of this discussion. A service provider is in its rights to define the service any way they want to. Cell phones have limits, electricity has limits, web hosting has limits, etc.

Just because a select few people refuse to accept defined limits around a paid service doesn't mean they will go away. If you want a different/unlimited service, buy a different unlimited service that is priced accordingly to what you are getting.



somms

join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT
reply to nerdburg

Click for full size
»Re: Where can you check how much bandwidth you have used so far?

My neighborhood is finally getting Utopia: »www.utopianet.org/blogs/general/···e-update

With a much more reasonable 1TB data cap and full 100Mbps Up/Down via fiber, it is really a no-brainer for me on dumping Comcast!

lancguy

join:2012-03-25
Lancaster, PA
reply to GTFan

Ok, two recent cases...a friend had a son downloading games for his x-box that he modded. She went over her limt 3 times and got cut. The only reason you would download games for a modded x-box is because you are illegally acquiring them.

My brother downloads music and games for his nitendo. He got notified when his daughter was streaming ESPN on her x-box.

People who run bit-torrent often get flagged, I find it hard to believe that it is because they are sharing legal files....

And for those using netflix or you tube, well they are essentially using networks provided by an ISP for nothing. It's how they keep the cost down. Who should be responsible for upkeeping those networks? Not netflix.

These caps are in place to ensure that all users on the Node have ample bandwidth for use. It is only a matter of time that all ISP's move to metered billing. Since the old business model based on unlimited use is not going to make sense with streaming video now.

And yes, the caps are working for me despite downloading some operating systems, and large program files, complete with the endless updates. I even use newsgroups heavily and still fall under the cap every month.


GTFan

join:2004-12-03
reply to captastic

said by captastic :

I really don't understand the point of this discussion. A service provider is in its rights to define the service any way they want to. Cell phones have limits, electricity has limits, web hosting has limits, etc.

Just because a select few people refuse to accept defined limits around a paid service doesn't mean they will go away. If you want a different/unlimited service, buy a different unlimited service that is priced accordingly to what you are getting.

The problem isn't the service provider's 'rights', it's that the market is a monopoly/duopoly in most areas so you can't shop around.

We may end up with metered billing solely because the FCC fails to do its job, but I think public pressure will change that tune eventually.

dscline

join:2001-09-01
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

reply to lancguy

said by lancguy:

a friend had a son downloading games for his x-box that he modded. She went over her limt 3 times and got cut. The only reason you would download games for a modded x-box is because you are illegally acquiring them.

My brother downloads music and games for his nitendo. He got notified when his daughter was streaming ESPN on her x-box.

People who run bit-torrent often get flagged, I find it hard to believe that it is because they are sharing legal files....

Excellent logic... some people who pirate go over the caps, therefore people who go over their caps must be pirates.

And for those using netflix or you tube, well they are essentially using networks provided by an ISP for nothing.

Really?!? I didn't realize Netflix didn't have any costs associated with their internet access. And I could have sworn that I paid for my internet access. But obviously I must be wrong.


nerdburg
Premium
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to captastic

said by captastic :

Just because a select few people refuse to accept defined limits around a paid service doesn't mean they will go away. If you want a different/unlimited service, buy a different unlimited service that is priced accordingly to what you are getting.

I already pay a premium for "Extreme" service and I have the same cap as someone subscribed to Economy Service. I understand "unlimited" service is a can of worms for Comcast, but it would be nice if they would at least consider raising the cap for certain speed tiers. I would be willing to pay more for unlimited service, but Comcast does not offer an unlimited data plan for residential customers. Even Extreme 105 customers that pay $200/month still get the same cap as everyone else.


PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by nerdburg:

I already pay a premium for "Extreme" service and I have the same cap as someone subscribed to Economy Service. I understand "unlimited" service is a can of worms for Comcast, but it would be nice if they would at least consider raising the cap for certain speed tiers. I would be willing to pay more for unlimited service, but Comcast does not offer an unlimited data plan for residential customers. Even Extreme 105 customers that pay $200/month still get the same cap as everyone else.

And that is why I support this effort. Personally, at the performance tier, the cap does not bother me...so far...but, like most folks, I will only be using more and more capcity as services continue to proliferate.

Besides, I absolutely agree that those folks who are paying for the higher speed tiers should get a correspondingly larger cap, at the bare minimum.
--
Deeds, not words


telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

Looks like Comcast's exemption from its 250GB data cap of the VoD content streamed to the Xbox 360 (»Comcast Xfinity for Xbox launching soon (possibly next week)) is helping Public Knowledge to make its case (»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···lans.php) against data caps:

PK Slams Comcast in Push for Data Cap Inquiry
Comcast says data caps do not apply to XfinityTV On Demand content
Broadcasting & Cable - March 26, 2012
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···uiry.php

"Public Knowledge Monday continued to press the FCC to look into usage caps.

After using reports of the new Apple iPad consuming large chunks of data plans to call for investigations into wireless data caps, Public Knowledge followed up with a jab to Comcast's midsection Monday over its wired pricing, and threatened the roundhouse punch of network neutrality to make its point that the FCC should get serious about investigating data limits.

Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn was responding to reports that Comcast was not counting the Xfinity video service it offers through Xbox against its broadband data caps, but was doing so for other video services via Xbox.

"The reports that Comcast is offering a video product through the Xbox 360 without the data counting toward the customer's data cap raises questions not only of the justification for the caps but, more importantly, of the survival of an open Internet," she said. "This type of arrangement is exactly the type of situation the Federal Communications Commission's rules on the open Internet were designed to prevent -- that an Internet Service Provider juggles the rules to give itself an advantage over a competitor. This is nothing less than a wake-up call to the Commission to show it is serious about protecting the open Internet. It also shows, once again, that the Commission should take the first steps toward understanding data caps."

Comcast says that the Xfinity service does not violate FCC rules.

"Comcast is committed to an open Internet and has pledged to abide by the FCC's Open Internet rules -- and our policies with respect to XfinityTV and the Xbox 360 fully comply with those rules and our commitments," the company said in a statement. "Any XfinityTV service that travels over the public Internet, including XfinityTV.com and our Xfinity TV app on mobile devices, counts toward our data usage threshold, as they always have. The Xfinity On Demand content that we will deliver to Xbox 360 will not travel over the public Internet and is delivered in much the same way as we deliver your video service to your set-top box. Your Xbox 360 essentially acts as an additional cable box for your existing cable service via the Xbox 360. As a result, our data caps do not apply."

Asked whether PK would file a complaint at the FCC, a PK spokesman said he was not sure. The FCC's network neutrality rules went into effect last fall, but no complaints of violations have apparently ensued (an FCC spokesman was checking at press time), though the FCC has been sued over the rules by Verizon and MetroPCS.

Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood joined Public Knowledge in criticizing the Comcast practice, but suggested that, technically, there might not be any grounds for complaint.

The FCC's codified and expanded network neutrality rules do not apply to private networks, something Free Press criticized at the time.

"Comcast tries to justify preferred treatment for its own video on the Xbox 360 by claiming that the content is delivered over a private IP network rather than the public Internet. But not counting this video against a Comcast customer's monthly data limit gives the Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services," said Wood. "Unfortunately, such anti-competitive tricks may be allowed by loopholes in the FCC's Open Internet rules, proving once again that the FCC failed to deliver on the promise of real Net Neutrality.""



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

A discussion about Comcast's data cap (with respect to the new XBox 360 VoD service) is also occurring in this thread: »Comcast Xfinity for Xbox launching soon (possibly next week)



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to lancguy

said by lancguy:

I can not for the life of me imagine anyone consistently going over the 250 gig limit.

»www.carbonite.com/en/?catid=goog···od-BTv-Q

Also, Windows Live Essentials, Picsa, Flickr, and yes, Netflix and other VoD providers.

I have heard of people getting hit for the cap, and they are usually exclusively streaming movies and tv or, pirating (music, games, software). Which by the way pirating violates your TOS.

I've used Netflix and DTV VoD. And Knoppix and Aeriagames downloads use BitTorrent; Knoppix and AG games are large and free.adnumber=10258862221
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to lancguy

said by lancguy:

And for those using netflix or you tube, well they are essentially using networks provided by an ISP for nothing. It's how they keep the cost down. Who should be responsible for upkeeping those networks?

Netflix and Google (YouTube) pay plenty for infrastructure from their servers to their peers, and I pay plenty for my Internet connection. So who is getting this "free ride" Ed Whitacre (former SBC/AT&T CEO) spoke of?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

1 recommendation

An article today on the GigaOM site about all the controversary regarding Comcast’s Xbox VoD app's data cap exemption:

The technical and legal realities of Comcast’s Xbox cap spat
By Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOM - March 27, 2012
»gigaom.com/broadband/the-technic···ap-spat/

"What Comcast has done through its agreement with Microsoft is to create a specialized path through the public Internet. By conceding to Comcast’s demands over authentication and whatever else, Microsoft has extended Comcast’s network onto its device and created a fast lane over which Comcast bits can travel. I wrote about the theoretical worries with these managed services back in 2009 (»gigaom.com/2009/10/21/fcc-will-p···ty-push/), when the FCC was weighing whether or not those services should exist on a neutral Internet. From that post:

For example, AT&T allocates a chunk of its pipe for delivering IPTV and won’t let other web traffic interfere with that. In practice, this means a set percentage of AT&T’s pipes are walled off from regular web traffic so customers paying for the telco TV product get a great service. But it also means that when the percentage allocated for the regular web is congested, regular service degrades.

If taken too far, then carriers could protect their revenue streams and get around any net neutrality provisions by allocating more of their network for managed services rather than for the public Internet. The FCC is worried that a neutral public Internet that gets forced through a smaller pipe so that carriers can invest more on upgrades and capacity for managed services won’t be able to support the innovations of tomorrow.


The FCC gave up the fight on managed services because it’s hard to regulate a theoretical, especially one with so many potential benefits for subscribers. Instead the net neutrality rules punted (»gigaom.com/2010/12/28/who-wins-a···y-rules/) on the managed services topic, focusing on the definition of broadband access which left wireline providers free to offer managed services for enterprise customers. On the consumer side offering specialized services seems okay provided it was on a limited number of a devices and in a few other special cases.

But opponents looking at Comcast’s decision are focused instead of the section of the net neutrality order that deals with discrimination, as opposed to what constitutes the broadband services actually protected by the regulations. For example, Michael Weinberg, from Public Knowledge says it’s important to look at how to adapt the rules going forward as the web changes. “If managed services can mean anything as long as you can imagine them in the cable landscape circa 2010 it becomes this huge loophole.”

He stressed that Public Knowledge isn’t done forming a legal argument to fight Comcast’s behavior, but in his view it’s clearly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the net neutrality regulations: In this case Comcast’s private IP network used to stream Xfinity packets is only private because Comcast owns the last mile. And the reason Microsoft may have ceded some control over to Comcast — and will enforce the pay TV status quo — is because it realized that without Comcast’s participation it might never get the chance to add value for Xbox buyers by bringing them the content they want.

For all of these reasons, any legal action that could stem from this spat will be worth watching. It will not only help define how network neutrality will work in an evolving broadband ecosystem, but it will show us where the power will lie in the new TV landscape governed by IP."



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

A reader's comment to the GigaOM article (»gigaom.com/broadband/the-technic···p-spat):

Dwayne Winseck's Media Blog
dwmw.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/co···trality/)
Wednesday, March 28 2012

The decisive factor in deciding whether Comcast can distribute its own tv-like services uncapped by way of the xBox might not be the 2009 FCC [Network Neutrality] rules, but the Comcast-NBC Universal take-over approval last year.

The “Comcast rules” set out there [state] that any Comcast service involving “caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing shall:

1. not treat affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic” (p. 38).

2. Offers the same facilities and capabilities to others on commercially equivalent terms(p. 38);

3. Even Comcast’s set-top boxes must adhere to the “broadband Internet access service rules” (pp. 38-40).

»transition.fcc.gov/transaction/c···bcu.html



sortofageek
Runs from Clowns
Premium,Mod
join:2001-08-19
kudos:21

It seems this thread is no longer about the original purpose: [Caps] Please sign the petition to raise or eliminate the cap
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .