I've never been a fan of Comcast's caps, but this gives me pause to reconsider. If Comcast throws in a larger cap with higher tier plans so that Blast and Extreme aren't just ways to hit your cap sooner, I'd have to begrudgingly admit that it's rather reasonable.
this is such crap i use 2 terabytes some months
why can't i have unlimited?!?!??!?
Time to abuse comcast buisness? I like how I use the word "abuse" when I'm not slowing anyone down.
idgaf a fawk that 98% of ppl are total noobs.
Miami Beach, FL
Wow, for someone who supposedly isn't a "n00b" you are remarkably misinformed. I'm all for debating whether current and planned caps and overage fees are reasonable, but there are a lot of people here who have some fundamental misconceptions of the economics involved.
All ISPs have to build out their network to a certain level of capacity. There are bottlenecks at various points within their network, in the last mile to your house, at the CMTS, in their private IP transport network, in their Internet backbone connections, their peering connections, etc.
Demand for bandwidth is growing steadily, so they have all architected their networks to be scalable. Upgrading their networks isn't free, it both costs money (capital), and also in the last mile in particular creates an opportunity cost (every additional channel dedicated to IP is another HD channel that can't be carried.)
When your ISP upgrades a component of their network before it gets bottlenecked, that upgrade provides additional capacity which could support a large number of "average" users, or a small number of "very heavy" users.
As you might imagine, the ISP would prefer to spread the cost of that upgrade across the large number of "average" users to maximize its investment. If the upgrade only supports a very small number of heavy users, they may not be able to recoup their investment within a reasonable timeframe.
Now don't you see why the ISPs would be motivated to treat very heavy users differently?
GlennAllenSunny with highs in the 80sPremiumReviews:
You seem to forget--or maybe don't know--that congestion/contention is caused too many customers all trying to use their connections at the same time, while "heavy" users, as a general rule, use their connections while most other customers are not using theirs. As such, they have zero effect on the network or other customers. Their "heavy" usage requires no upgrades to support because they simply use the network more during the "slack" times.
BTW, I hope you notice this, essentially, means that those who'll have to pay an overage will be paying extra--at a very dear price--for bandwidth they used during a network's low-utilization periods. (Wow! ...how cool is that! [not]) Well, at least they'll have the satisfaction of knowing they got closer to their provisioned speeds since there was hardly anyone else to contend with on the network at the time.
Miami Beach, FL
GlennAllen, I completely agree that the problem is "peak" usage and building capacity to match it. I'm not sure I completely agree that heavy users tend to use during off-peak times, but I don't have any data to back it up. There's certainly more to the story than I wrote, but I was trying to bring a bit of sanity and understanding to a topic that I feel a lot of people don't fully understand.
I have seen attempts to discourage "peak" usage--some ISPs in the UK, for example, have demand management policies for peak periods. Properly implemented, these types of policies are much more effective than a simply cap.
Yes it's called "throttle" and the telcos slow you down during peak periods .. they know there are ways around it (tunnels) but most users will just live with it. I'll take this during peak periods vs. caps any day.