dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1840
share rss forum feed

MisterP

join:2012-10-11
US

[Caps] Comcast tiered vs flat cap trials?

Anyone know when Comcast will wrap up these trials here in Nashville and in Tucson? I hope they choose tiered caps; that along with the Blast upgrade to 50/10 would be nice.

All I know is they are going to look pretty stupid leaving the 300GB cap in place with a 50Mbps connection. That's like saying "Here's a Farrari; you can go as fast as you want, but only for 3 miles a day"


TriForce

join:2008-05-27
Chico, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
I'd rather they do away with caps as they do not serve any other purpose than limit customer choice. If there is a congestion issue, that would be investigated in a case-by-case level.

We're steadily getting to a server side (cloud) based infrastructure so caps would be anti-competitive.


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL

1 edit
reply to MisterP
Internet usage is getting crazy without even being a torrent downloader anymore! I mean my house only has two people but we use over 150GB per month! We only use our connection for general browsing, YouTube, Netflix, email, and other normal internet usage. We don't use any torrent programs or basically download anything but updates or the occasional MP3. I think most of it comes from Netflix and YouTube of which we watch a lot. But we don't watch it 24/7 as we also have cable. I've noticed over the past year our internet usage has gone up month by month as video on the net becomes more and more the "norm". I would hate to see a household which everyone uses Netflix, Xbox 360, HBO Go, YouTube, Torrents, Steam, etc! How do they stay within 250GB?!

Edit: Just called a friend who is older and only uses the net for normal browsing, email and the occasional YouTube vid is using 35GB per month! I mean I just can't see how a big family makes it under that 250GB limit, which I know is currently suspended. I think the limit needs to be 1TB a month. Or make it 500GB and an extra $10 for and extra 500GB making 1TB? The congestion issue is a myth and I'm tired of going backwards! First cell phones now internet?!
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."


Tobin

join:2003-09-21
Burlingame, CA
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to TriForce
said by TriForce:

I'd rather they do away with caps as they do not serve any other purpose than limit customer choice. If there is a congestion issue, that would be investigated in a case-by-case level.

We're steadily getting to a server side (cloud) based infrastructure so caps would be anti-competitive.

Cable operators in most localities have a functional monopoly, we're all aware of that obviously.

They're also hemorrhaging TV-side subscriptions, so the logical step is to discourage consumption of TV/film content via third party services. Adding transfer caps is one method...owning the content networks is another.

It's the same reason why just about all mobile carriers have capped data. They don't want you to circumvent their voice plans by using Google Voice, Skype, etc. on their network.


PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to FifthE1ement
said by FifthE1ement:

Internet usage is getting crazy without even being a torrent downloader anymore! I mean my house only has two people but we use over 150GB per month! We only use our connection for general browsing, YouTube, Netflix, email, and other normal internet usage. We don't use any torrent programs or basically download anything but updates or the occasional MP3.

Of course I have no way of knowing how much Netflix you view a month, but based on your stated usage, that would be the primary culprit.
--
Deeds, not words


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
said by PeteC2:

said by FifthE1ement:

Internet usage is getting crazy without even being a torrent downloader anymore! I mean my house only has two people but we use over 150GB per month! We only use our connection for general browsing, YouTube, Netflix, email, and other normal internet usage. We don't use any torrent programs or basically download anything but updates or the occasional MP3.

Of course I have no way of knowing how much Netflix you view a month, but based on your stated usage, that would be the primary culprit.

Caps are not an issue for me as I have Comcast for TV.

I myself am not a big fan of Netflix. A lot of the TV I watch is live TV (such as weather channel and Fox News) and local newscasts. I also watch a lot of specialty content.

As for caps, I think they should waive or raise them if you subscribe to more than one service through them (like a higher cap if you add phone and waive cap if you have expanded basic TV or higher).
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.

MisterP

join:2012-10-11
US
Wishful thinking that they'll get rid of the caps; too much of a money maker (That's why they went with the "charge you more for another block of data vs cutting your service; because it was never about curtailing congestion). I'm in Nashville so Comcast has us under a flat 300GB cap for these trials and I agree that internet usage is surging especially with these larger pipes (I didn't want Cable TV purposely so I only have internet; tired of people picking my programming for me. I hit 100 GB last month ONLY watching HD shows, movies etc. YouTube and such not; no one else is on my connection. My gaming PC isn't built yet but Steam is going to WRECK my connection lol. Now tell me the current 300GB cap they are proposing is enough for even two tech-using roommates much less a small family. Utterly ridiculous.) Even if they implement the 'Tuscon' plan and tier the caps, Blast (Which is now 50/10) only gets 350GB. That may be fine for me by myself but the above stated scenarios will be hurting mid-month I suspect.

And in my opinion, de-capping an account that bundles CATV or Voice is grasping for life and is trying to keep people in the past by artificially monkeying with the market (As Tobin station with Cell companies trying to stop you from using freely available apps to do things the carriers charge for). Whether companies like it or not, people are moving toward internet programming to watch visual media due to less distractions/commercials, getting choice in watching exactly what they want when they want it and being able to throttle themselves to stop and start when they want (i.e. Damn you Bond marathons on SpikeTV back in the day lol; never got anything done on those days)

But I digress; so to answer original question, does anyone have any idea or heard any rumors on what Comcast will decide? Do the two cities even get any input or survey or some sort since we are the test subjects for these caps? Or are they just monitoring our consumption to see how badly we go over the limits?


plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3
reply to MisterP
After reading all the replies in this thread to the OP's question, I came to same conclusion that MisterP See Profile has. Has anyone heard how the trials are going? We all know where they are taking place, but is there some kind of status update that could be passed on?

Not saying that the posts that have been made are bad. They are not, and do go along with caps and usage. I think it is just interesting that we have not heard any updates from anyone in regards to these trial.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail


AnonMan

@comcast.net
reply to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

As for caps, I think they should waive or raise them if you subscribe to more than one service through them (like a higher cap if you add phone and waive cap if you have expanded basic TV or higher).

They would never do this as it would be a slew of legal messes.

The whole excuse right now is the caps are to keep heavy hitters down when really it's to make more money. While yes SOME users do use excessive amounts that is what you have terms in service use for. You should target those specific people that are hurting the node or eating all the bandwidth, but if the node has enough bandwidth leave them alone even. Nothing wrong with monitoring our usage for network efficiency but don't limit or charge for said use.

If they allowed people with an additional service to have unlimited and others not they would get smacked so fast saying they are giving unfair advantage and not allow competition etc.

At the end of the day the avg. customer is the one hurt.

I am all for network management, part of what I do for a living is deal with that. However I don't target an entire network when I see a problem. I target the problem. Shotgun effects never worked efficiently and often are not fair, though these days nothing in life is lol

What I don't get is how everyone is pushing things to go online but at the same time ISPs try to limit that... Look at games. These days most for PC at least have to be downloaded and consoles are starting to get that way too. It's more efficient and better overall in most cases, but caps hurt this sort of thing.

If the overall network is saturated to the point you need to put in caps that means you are not investing enough in it. If the overall network is not and it's just a small say 1%, well you are not enforcing your terms of use properly or going after that 1%. Limiting the whole 100% to deal with 1% does nothing for the consumer or company from a customer service stand point. Want to stand out vs. competition and offer best service and support? Take care of your clients


JasonOD

@comcast.net
reply to MisterP
Flat cap?!? What about overages? Is Comcast not charging overage fees in the trial areas? Comcast should be expected to raise the caps at reasonable levels and intervals, but under their proposed overage model- Use more, pay more, it's that simple.

rmdir

join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL
reply to MisterP
The cable companies and AT&T who provide both digital TV and internet services should be forced to spin off the divisions into 2 separate entities to avoid conflict of interest. It's amazing how AT&T has UVerse bandwidth caps, but they exempt their own offerings while applying them to the competition.


gar187er
I do this for a living

join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE
kudos:4
it doesnt cost them anymore to send you the data if its on their network.
--
I'm better than you!

AndyDufresne
Premium
join:2010-10-30
Chanhassen, MN
reply to MisterP
Trial doesn't mean crap. They will pick one that makes them the most money, what customers want is not in the equation.


AnonMan

@comcast.net
reply to gar187er
Well if you follow that this should mean any traffic that is on ATT network should be exempt including if I transfer a file to a friend who has ATT and it rides ATT the whole way.

Or any business that uses ATT and it rides them the whole way.
Why can't that be exempt? Same concept, don't cost them anymore as they own network...

It's got nothing to do with they network vs. another. Most major peers are settlement free. The problem is one of two things and we all know which one it is...

A) the cost of upgrades/maint of existing network to keep up with demands.
B) business loss due to other content providers.

That said if it was A, that internal IPTV traffic though on-net still uses bandwidth internally which is not unlimited speed wise neither.

Uverse is a perfect example, 24/3 meg customer with TV, turns on all his TV to HD channels and his speed will take a dip... It's on net traffic but still hurts overall.

That said caps are pure BS and just a way to limit competition. While yes some people abuse bandwidth they should be handled on a case by case since it's claimed that only 1% of the people use soo much...

Same thing with comcast and anyone else. Though it may be internal traffic it is still traffic using resources on switches, routers etc. so it's really pointless to blame internal vs. external content. Even using multicast that saves you from needing a crap load of servers to send the data but that data still passes over everything...


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

That said caps are pure BS and just a way to limit competition. While yes some people abuse bandwidth they should be handled on a case by case since it's claimed that only 1% of the people use soo much...

I agree, which is why they are going after less than 1% of the people. Hell, even at 250gb, my wife and I are power users and don't exceed the cap. Not even close. I think the highest we have gotten is 220gb.

I also would like to know how the trials are going and what direction Comcast is looking at. I guess, from the comments I am hearing, no one has any information. This thread has really just turned into a bitching session about how caps suck with no info on what the OP wanted.

If anyone has some info, let me know.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:10
Curious; how do you define a "Power User"?


NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
reply to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

After reading all the replies in this thread to the OP's question, I came to same conclusion that MisterP See Profile has. Has anyone heard how the trials are going? We all know where they are taking place, but is there some kind of status update that could be passed on?

Not saying that the posts that have been made are bad. They are not, and do go along with caps and usage. I think it is just interesting that we have not heard any updates from anyone in regards to these trial.

You will get your trial results update the day after AT&T resumes their cap program for U-verse (which like Comcast's cap program is on temporary hold). AT&T and Comcast are playing a game of stare down; each is waiting for the other to blink first. In my opinion, that will be AT&T because AT&T's greed makes Comcast look like a philanthropic not for profit organization. Once AT&T starts up their cap program again, Comcast will likely clone AT&T's program as their own.
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.


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

Curious; how do you define a "Power User"?

There is a big difference between a "power user" and a "torrent junkie".
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:10
Yes, but how do you define a power user? I don't torrent, but use on average more than you.


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

Yes, but how do you define a power user? I don't torrent, but use on average more than you.

The definition is open to interpretation. As an IT professional, I do a wide variety of things with my connection. More than the common user. Things like streaming audio from my synology, hosting my Windows 2011 home server, streaming recordings from my Windows Media Center, and so on. I am sure other power users could do more than I do, and thats fine. I just don't have the time to list out every activity.

I am sure you will agree that "power users" do use their connection more and in a wider variety than your run of the mill user who just checks their gmail and surfs youtube.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


AnonMan

@comcast.net
reply to NetFixer
Yea the whole Power User thing is subjective.

I had to reinstall windows last month and as such re-download a few games and BF3 alone is huge. You go the game itself and another 6+GB for each expansion. So I used about 50GB just for that.

We won't even talk about other games, windows updates etc.

Now I have a co-worker, just him and his wife. They use about 400GB a month and hardly download anything. They just stream everything for TV, play games etc.

I think if caps are to be implemented they should have just done them on uploads. The avg person abusing the internet is probably letting torrents run all day because you can't possibly sit and find enough stuff to keep your pc downloading for a month straight every month maxing out your bandwidth really. While if you left torrents running yeah, that thing will upload non-stop.

It's just all silly. Companies are saving more and more money as bandwidth gets cheaper, not to mention that they are saving more on labor costs as now if you disconnect cable for example they don't even come out. You take them boxes and that's it. Everything is encrypted by me so they don't need to come disconnect the line even. Not to mention they sure are not paying the techs any more and insurance coverages have dropped so in the end that leaves growing pockets only.


Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:10
reply to Nightfall
You just made me wonder when you called yourself a power user and said you haven't exceeded 220gb that I could be considered a power user. I just never considered myself in that category. My usage putting me in that 1% is due to multiple people streaming daily.


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

You just made me wonder when you called yourself a power user and said you haven't exceeded 220gb that I could be considered a power user. I just never considered myself in that category. My usage putting me in that 1% is due to multiple people streaming daily.

My parents fall into the 150gb-200gb range because they stream a lot of netflix. We are talking a ton.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net