dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1802
share rss forum feed

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Reasonable

If this is the approach Comcast will take going forward, 500GB is reasonable for Blast, and I wouldn't consider that punitive. If the cap is nonexistent for the Extreme 50/105/300 tiers beyond that, or even larger, I think people would have very little to complain about.

I would see Comcast much more favorably if this were rolled out instead of what they're trying in Nashville.


whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Os:

If this is the approach Comcast will take going forward, 500GB is reasonable for Blast, and I wouldn't consider that punitive.

Not really. You're restricting the activities that a household will do based on the cap. Onlive + Netflix + Backblaze + Bitcasa can eat up over a terabyte a month.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Sure, any cap will be a restriction, but Blast is not one of the higher tiers. I'll withhold some judgment on the overall picture, not knowing what happens to Extreme, but very few people are ever coming close to using a terabyte per month currently. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those people to pay for higher tiers for more usage. I do, however, think it's double dipping to charge those people for the higher speeds and then for the higher bandwidth. It should be common sense that the higher speed connection is going to use more bandwidth.

Comcast is at least showing they understand bandwidth usage is increasing, and that they're moving with the times. We have to give them credit for that.


whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Os:

I do, however, think it's double dipping to charge those people for the higher speeds and then for the higher bandwidth. It should be common sense that the higher speed connection is going to use more bandwidth.

(This is kind of on a tangent. and I'm not opposing your comment.)

If Comcast is trying to extend the life of their copper network and the caps were about limiting congestion, we should actually see an opposite of the what the plans reflect.

The most expensive plans would be slower speeds but would be unlimited.

Likewise, the high speed plans should be cheaper but capped.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to whfsdude
So you might need to skip one or more of those activities, or buy more capacity to fill that "need". I'm guessing the "$10 per 50GB " or similar will still be available.
for those that have higher bandwidth desires Fios (in those few areas they go head to head) might be a better deal, for most ComCast will offer equal speeds and adquite capacity at a lower price point which seem to be a primary market driver right now.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast
If I lived in a Comcast/FiOS market, I would still go FiOS because I feel they have a superior TV product. Also, still largely, higher upload. Of course, Verizon would rather offer me 3 Mbps DSL for all eternity, so I'm stuck.

But it's clear Comcast is lapping all the other cable companies in innovating with broadband.


whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Os:

If I lived in a Comcast/FiOS market, I would still go FiOS because I feel they have a superior TV product. Also, still largely, higher upload. Of course, Verizon would rather offer me 3 Mbps DSL for all eternity, so I'm stuck.

Not to get too local here but this applies to the DC Metro area, PHL, NJ/NYC, and Boston which are pretty big Comcast markets in the NE.

I know some users who are not switching to FiOS in DC even though it's available to them. This has actually been brought up a bunch of times on the local listservs and the subreddit.

1. The big reason to stay with Comcast here is they recently have been rolling out hundreds of hotspots in DC.
2. Price. Double play (TV + Internet) is about $20/mo cheaper.
3. Installation pains/effort.

With that said, Verizon is still finishing many neighborhoods and will have a complete rollout in the next year for all of DC proper. Conduit was just recently put up in my alley for FiOS and the tech doing it said by December at the latest for my whole neighborhood. If Comcast implements the cap in my neighborhood they will lose at least 50% of their customer base come next year.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US

1 recommendation

Don't forget Pittsburgh and Harrisburg in that.

Most of Allegheny County has FiOS now. I'm not sure of the deployment in Harrisburg, but I know it's in both Dauphin and Cumberland counties.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to whfsdude
said by whfsdude:

If Comcast implements the cap in my neighborhood they will lose at least 50% of their customer base come next year.

You really think 50% ACTUALLY use more than 500GB?

how did they survive the 250GB cap?

BTW boston itself seems to be shunning Fios so that market can't really be on the list, and many of the others aren't fully rolled out.

Probably each service will have it's diehards, and a certain number will wander back and forth for a few promo discounts.
getting people to actually switch is very difficult, Fios had a big speed advantage (which most people wouldn't notice in a blind test) but now CC is close, CC is cheaper and can sit on that price for a while and even offer some promos, fios is still under priced for the debt load. (their wireline division is at a pathetic 2.8% margin, largely due to fios) investors expect the higher single digits or more for a regulated utility, so more price increases are almost inevitable.

And we've seen a number of people here that tried fios and then returned to a previous/different carrier.
It is apparently not nirvana for everyone.


whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by tshirt:

You really think 50% ACTUALLY use more than 500GB?

I don't think 50% actually use more than 500GB, but when you start talking about charged overages, people don't want to worry about it even if they don't use that much.

how did they survive the 250GB cap?

Was never enforced in DC.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to whfsdude
said by whfsdude:

said by Os:

If this is the approach Comcast will take going forward, 500GB is reasonable for Blast, and I wouldn't consider that punitive.

Not really. You're restricting the activities that a household will do based on the cap. Onlive + Netflix + Backblaze + Bitcasa can eat up over a terabyte a month.

Of those services, only Netflix is one that a common household will use.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to whfsdude
So you believe people will go through the hassle, learning curve and expense of changing over to a more expensive service, out of fear of a cap they never exceeded and was never enforced anyway?
I don't think most users are motivated enough to do that, and few would even care/notice a cap policy change unless they were warned at least once.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to whfsdude
said by whfsdude:

said by tshirt:

You really think 50% ACTUALLY use more than 500GB?

I don't think 50% actually use more than 500GB, but when you start talking about charged overages, people don't want to worry about it even if they don't use that much.

how did they survive the 250GB cap?

Was never enforced in DC.

I really think you need to come back to reality. The simple fact of the matter is that less than 1% of residential customers use over 250gb of bandwidth in a month. It isn't like people are going over like crazy and the cap was never enforced. The bandwidth cap is not like the amount of minutes on a cell phone plan.

Now that you mention it though, maybe Comcast can increase profits by telling people they should get higher tiers of service in order to get more bandwidth that they will never use.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Nightfall:

I really think you need to come back to reality. The simple fact of the matter is that less than 1% of residential customers use over 250gb of bandwidth in a month. It isn't like people are going over like crazy and the cap was never enforced. The bandwidth cap is not like the amount of minutes on a cell phone plan.

But you have to understand that most users don't know or keep track of their bandwidth usage. Power users, sure. So they don't really know how much they are using or will use.

When there is viable competition (FiOS) that states Comcast charges overages if you use more than your allotted data, which provider do you think people will generally choose?

Wireless is probably a bad example to use because so much of it depends on the phone selection over the actual service.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

1 recommendation

said by whfsdude:

said by Nightfall:

I really think you need to come back to reality. The simple fact of the matter is that less than 1% of residential customers use over 250gb of bandwidth in a month. It isn't like people are going over like crazy and the cap was never enforced. The bandwidth cap is not like the amount of minutes on a cell phone plan.

But you have to understand that most users don't know or keep track of their bandwidth usage. Power users, sure. So they don't really know how much they are using or will use.

When there is viable competition (FiOS) that states Comcast charges overages if you use more than your allotted data, which provider do you think people will generally choose?

Wireless is probably a bad example to use because so much of it depends on the phone selection over the actual service.

Very true, but consumers aren't going over the limit like crazy. The limit is set to high that nearly all consumers can use Netflix, email, and browse like crazy and never hit it. Now, when consumers start hitting that limit, Comcast will either need to educate them on the limit or increase the limit.

As for competition in every Comcast market, wake me up when that happens.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Nightfall
If only 1%, then why the caps? That sure is a small amount, shouldn't affect a mammoth like Comcast.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to whfsdude
said by whfsdude:

With that said, Verizon is still finishing many neighborhoods and will have a complete rollout in the next year for all of DC proper.

Believe it when I see it.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to whfsdude
said by whfsdude:

said by tshirt:

You really think 50% ACTUALLY use more than 500GB?

I don't think 50% actually use more than 500GB, but when you start talking about charged overages, people don't want to worry about it even if they don't use that much.

how did they survive the 250GB cap?

Was never enforced in DC.

I'll take it a step further. Some HD Netflix streaming (which Netflix defaults to when in Fullscreen Mode at 1366x768 and above), whether it be on PC, and Xbox 360 or other console, or Roku box will use Gigs upon Gigs of data before anything else is accounted for.

As for how they survived the 250GB cap, it was a soft cap that was rarely, if ever, enforced. I know I broke it on roughly a monthly basis. You should see my data transfer logs from my pfSense box.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

said by whfsdude:

said by tshirt:

You really think 50% ACTUALLY use more than 500GB?

I don't think 50% actually use more than 500GB, but when you start talking about charged overages, people don't want to worry about it even if they don't use that much.

how did they survive the 250GB cap?

Was never enforced in DC.

I really think you need to come back to reality. The simple fact of the matter is that less than 1% of residential customers use over 250gb of bandwidth in a month.

I'd like to see nominal proof of that 1% declarator - especially in light of more and more people using online video such as HBO GO, Netflix, and even YouTube (where more and more videos are going HD).


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to The Limit
It would depend how far over that 1% went, suppose that 1% all had 105-305 accounts a thus staturated the channels in their areas causing ComCast to do 100-1000's of physical node splits, with costs far exceeding what they'll recieve during the 2-3 year contracts of that 1%.
There are a number of scenrios that would make network management difficult, or cause comcast to spend more on those customers than they return in overage fees, but the hope is the costs will average out AND the cost will make it undesireable for any users to regularly use comcast HSI as an UNLIMITED service.

see it doesn't matter where the actual breakeven point is, it is a private network, they are current selecting an included bandwidth level for each tier that
1}they believe the network can support
2}that they believe covers typical useage of their customers
3}that charge people who exceed that level a small portion of the cost of additional expansion
4}that serves the majority of their customers at a reasonable price point
5}That allows them to continue as a sucessful for profit business

all out in the open, no need to read the fine print
service level x includes XXXGB, if you need more it's $10 for each 50gb more.

if you don't like it you are free to find something else that fits your needs.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

I'd like to see nominal proof of that 1% declarator - especially in light of more and more people using online video such as HBO GO, Netflix, and even YouTube (where more and more videos are going HD).

so you are now paying all those for content directly to avoid the CATV middleman? but you still need to pay for transport, and you have choosen a far more costly method.
rather than 1 cable channel(which may use less than a full physical channel) sending the show to millions at once, you now want millions to have that show custom transmitted just to them.

It is the differnce between a truckload of toilet paper being delivered from the factory to a nearby store, or the factory sending out rolls to each house by cab on demand.

Not only is the cab method expensive, at certain points the road capacity is not large enough for all the cabs needed at once (say on half-price spicy burrito night/a very popular show) and so some delieverys will not be on time so someone has to pay to widen the road/build more cabs, and as always that cost eventually gets paid by the consumer.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

I'd like to see nominal proof of that 1% declarator - especially in light of more and more people using online video such as HBO GO, Netflix, and even YouTube (where more and more videos are going HD).

The best thing I can tell you is that the 1% is quite true. I have done consulting work for a couple different ISPs in the past. The usage statistics are quite disparate. A vast majority of people who have broadband are using far less than 100gb. Then you have some who range between 100-200gb. Then you have less than 1% who stress out their connections constantly. Could be torrents or just that they have a lot of usage needs. The number is actually closer to half a percent, but it happens. These are just for residential lines.

I think you would see more complaints from common consumers if there were huge problems with the cap. Things that you mention, HBO Go, Netflix, Crackle, and You Tube really don't eat up that much. My parents use Netflix all the time, and last bandwidth check was at 150gb on a peak month. Most months are at around 100gb.

I would love to see current usage statistics as well though.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

1 recommendation

reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

I'd like to see nominal proof of that 1% declarator - especially in light of more and more people using online video such as HBO GO, Netflix, and even YouTube (where more and more videos are going HD).

It's actually well under 1% that uses more than 250 GB in a month. And of course, 500 GB would be even less than that.

As shown in the latest Measuring Broadband America report from the FCC, the 50th percentile for monthly traffic on a cable connection is around 30 GB. The 99th percentile is around 120 GB.

This was in April 2012. There may have been some growth since then, but probably not enough to double all the numbers.

»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Chart19

This data was measured by putting a data-collection box right after the modem. Therefore, it should be fairly accurate.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by tanzam75:

said by PapaMidnight:

I'd like to see nominal proof of that 1% declarator - especially in light of more and more people using online video such as HBO GO, Netflix, and even YouTube (where more and more videos are going HD).

It's actually well under 1% that uses more than 250 GB in a month. And of course, 500 GB would be even less than that.

As shown in the latest Measuring Broadband America report from the FCC, the 50th percentile for monthly traffic on a cable connection is around 30 GB. The 99th percentile is around 120 GB.

This was in April 2012. There may have been some growth since then, but probably not enough to double all the numbers.

»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Chart19

This data was measured by putting a data-collection box right after the modem. Therefore, it should be fairly accurate.

Great find!
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to The Limit
said by The Limit:

If only 1%, then why the caps? That sure is a small amount, shouldn't affect a mammoth like Comcast.

Don't expect the peebs around here to understand that. They've drank too much kool aid and just keep repeating the same party line nonsense.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

said by tanzam75:

said by PapaMidnight:

I'd like to see nominal proof of that 1% declarator - especially in light of more and more people using online video such as HBO GO, Netflix, and even YouTube (where more and more videos are going HD).

It's actually well under 1% that uses more than 250 GB in a month. And of course, 500 GB would be even less than that.

As shown in the latest Measuring Broadband America report from the FCC, the 50th percentile for monthly traffic on a cable connection is around 30 GB. The 99th percentile is around 120 GB.

This was in April 2012. There may have been some growth since then, but probably not enough to double all the numbers.

»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Chart19

This data was measured by putting a data-collection box right after the modem. Therefore, it should be fairly accurate.

Great find!

Indeed, it is an excellent find.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt
I respectfully disagree, and here's why.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The costs that are incurred in your toilet paper example include, but are not limited to, gasoline, cab maintenance, cab purchase, etc.

Gasoline, which is refined, is a finite resource. Cab parts are a finite resource. The "ingredients" to make toilet paper are finite resources.

Data is not a finite resource. Electricity can be argued to be a finite resource, however that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about "limiting" data because apparently it's a "finite" resource.

The real issue is that many ISPs base their business model on a certain level of oversubscription. That's fine and dandy. With enough data, oversubscription can be a viable alternative because usage patterns can be observed and used in planning and designing an efficient network. However, these "caps" have nothing to do with "managing" a network as we have seen so far. Why does Comcast, or any ISP for that matter, cherrypick where they "enforce" said caps? Because of competition? We have plenty of user testimonies here that prove that Comcast doesn't enforce these caps because of other "ISPs" in the area.

The sad fact is that many do not have the option to "choose" ISPs, so this whole "free market wins" is false. There isn't a free market, and there never will be in this country.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

said by The Limit:

If only 1%, then why the caps? That sure is a small amount, shouldn't affect a mammoth like Comcast.

Don't expect the peebs around here to understand that. They've drank too much kool aid and just keep repeating the same party line nonsense.

If you need an answer to that question, then you need to go back and research shared services, nodes, and broadband history.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to The Limit
The capacity of the PHYSICAL plant is finite and due to the cost envolved every ISP has built on a "oversubscribed" model.

so back in the analog/telephone modem days 8-10fold was a common number, because that was close to real time useage and NO ONE would pay 8-10 times as much for the service, had they built on a 1 to 1 basis
The jump to broadband was affordable because everyone could be connected at once, but the conention rate was now hundreds to one (obvisously NOBODY expected people to use the WAN like the LAN at that point, it didn't even make sense until speed approached a reasonable LAN throughput)

So there is no free market, it is not comcast's responsiblity to break that trend, and supply you with competition, nor is there any reason for them to provide more of this VALUBLE service(it must have intrinsic value , because YOU want it so badly) for less or even as a directly proportional/cost plus service.
in fact the more you NEED it/they higher value you place on it, the more likely comcast or any provider that had the foresight to build a data capable network to your home is to price it higher.
And infact to lower the contention rate down to 1 to 1 would push monthly fees several fold higher.
So comcast (really any ISP) has to balance the existing plant capacity plus a realistic upgrade rate vs keeping the monthly cost at a sustainable level (too high and you lose subs and make less money overall---too low you can not breakeven/finance upgrades to service.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

If you need an answer to that question, then you need to go back and research shared services, nodes, and broadband history.

You need to get a clue.