Exclusive: Some Comcast Users Will See 500 GB Cap > Reasonable

reply to tshirt

Re: Reasonable

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.

reply to whfsdude

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

reply to whfsdude

reply to Nightfall

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.

reply to PapaMidnight

reply to PapaMidnight

reply to PapaMidnight

reply to The Limit

reply to Nightfall

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)

reply to brad

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.

reply to Nightfall

reply to Nightfall
Thanks for the helpful, and informative, reply.

In reply to tshirt: I'm not asking Comcast to break the trend, I'm requesting that companies like Comcast to be "fair". Sure, have caps, but enforce them EVERYWHERE. I don't think it's necessarily fair to cherry pick where they enforce said caps because of "competition".

For future reference, I'd rather pay for broadband like I pay for a utility, but alas, can't break that "free market" we have going for us.

Nightfall, I've read about broadband history, shared resources, and nodes. This shouldn't be a problem if usage pattern are accurately measured. Don't complain about my short answer if you are going to give me the run around on "researching" said topics. I don't doubt your experience, but I do doubt that giving consumers choices rather than letting our "free market" decide, which many companies like this have their hand in the cookie jar but then complain they can't have their cake and cookies at the same time, is not the correct way to approach this.
--
"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)