WoofieInPC Premium Member join:2009-04-04 Panama City, FL |
to GAComcastUsr
Re: [Rant] For those in GA hit by data caps: Be sure to file a complaint!Interesting, since by IP you don't appear to be a Comcast user. |
|
|
GAComcastUsr
Anon
2013-Dec-20 5:11 pm
I sure am in Georgia (Fulton County).. I am posting from my work ISP. Is this not okay?
I never said net neutrality was law in Georgia, I said this is an unfair practice (which is exactly what they state that they are looking for on the complaints site). Their own services are not counted against this cap which is why I feel this is anti-consumer, especially since they are the only ISP around unless you go with dialup or DSL. Even U-Verse is not available my area.
Even though this may not do anything.. at least I can say I tried something, rather than trashing someone who is posting about it. Thanks, though. |
|
|
|
to WoofieInPC
And since the IP is from business provider - the person posting just might be at work - unless he has MPLS at home.... |
|
Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
to WoofieInPC
What part of his IP doesn't appear to be CC? My IP is 50.x.x.x and I am on CC. |
|
|
TAZ
Anon
2013-Dec-25 4:24 pm
Comcast doesn't have the /8, just smaller assignments. quote: CIDR: 50.21.0.0/17, 50.20.0.0/16 OrgName: CBEYOND COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
It doesn't matter though. It's just another attempt at the "you're not @comcast.net so you shouldn't be posting in here" crap. Cbeyond is a business provider and OP said they were at work. Nothing wrong with that. |
|
Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2013-Dec-25 5:00 pm
Not at all |
|
WoofieInPC Premium Member join:2009-04-04 Panama City, FL |
to TAZ
I know you say you HAD Comcast, but it doesn't make sense to me to complain about a provider you don't have. Unless, of course, you just like to complain and argue. THEN it makes sense . |
|
|
TAZ
Anon
2013-Dec-25 8:57 pm
I get involved in discussions like these because I'm against the data caps entirely, no matter what provider. Also, even if I don't use Comcast, it does affect me because they're the only broadband competitor here. Their implementation of overages will more easily allow my ISP to move towards that model as well. (Note that CL already has a 250GB cap, but no overages yet, and it's selectively enforced. I have complained about that policy quite a few times on that forum when the topic has come up. I don't just bitch about Comcast.) |
|
|
said by TAZ :I get involved in discussions like these because I'm against the data caps entirely, no matter what provider. Same here. People need to continue to speak up. Thank you sir for doing so. |
|
|
TAZ
Anon
2013-Dec-25 9:06 pm
Yep, this is a battle that involves all of us, even if it at first glance only appears to be a Comcast battle. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to WoofieInPC
said by WoofieInPC:I know you say you HAD Comcast, but it doesn't make sense to me to complain about a provider you don't have. I never had Comcast. I used to have AT&T, until they implemented "Cap-and-Overage"; at which point I fired them. Why is it so wrong to complain about a bad policy? It shouldn't matter who provides my Internet. AT&T is clearly using their "Cap-and-Overage" for a different purpose than the Comcast apologists cite as a reason for the policy; so there is no "universal" reason that makes rational sense. |
|
Alcohol Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI |
to WoofieInPC
said by WoofieInPC:I know you say you HAD Comcast, but it doesn't make sense to me to complain about a provider you don't have. Sure it does if the reason he doesn't have them is because of said cap. |
|
|
Geot
Anon
2013-Dec-26 9:49 am
The ISPs are getting burned twice by video streaming. First they have spent and will continue to spend a ton of cash on network upgrades to support the explosion in data use due to video streaming. Then to top it off they have customers that are dropping TV and moving all their "TV" watching to the internet side.
Other than a few highly publicized deals by Google, no one is building out anymore. It has been years since FIOS added any new areas despite the fact that they have plenty of places that are begging them to come in. There is no money in this, so ISPs are trying a variety of strategies. Caps, nickel and diming you where they can, delaying network upgrades until they have no choice, blaming 3rd parties etc etc. It is a tough business model, mega capital up front to get into a rapidly evolving game.
When someone finds a way to deliver high quality high speed internet (i.e. 50+ that doesnt drop) through the air, companies like Comcast will be screwed and billions will be written off. |
|
DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX |
to TAZ
said by TAZ :I get involved in discussions like these because I'm against the data caps entirely, no matter what provider. Also, even if I don't use Comcast, it does affect me because they're the only broadband competitor here. Their implementation of overages will more easily allow my ISP to move towards that model as well. (Note that CL already has a 250GB cap, but no overages yet, and it's selectively enforced. I have complained about that policy quite a few times on that forum when the topic has come up. I don't just bitch about Comcast.) Well ISP have to pay for bandwidth when in transit agreements (not all ISP to ISP links can be peering) then comcast has to spend money maintaining and upgrading their "last mile" infrastructure. While data center bandwidth is dirt cheap "last mile" isn't So while I too dislike caps and purely out of that dislike got BCI I do understand the need. And then you still have jerks using D1.1 and D2 modems causing inefficient use of the last mile infrastructure. |
|
DarkLogix |
to NormanS
well AT&T's cap/over implementation IIRC was far more of a hindrance and would impact all users in a real way.
Comcast's is the highest of any US ISP (last I checked) and has even been raised (used to be 250GB now its 300GB) so they've shown they're willing to up it as times go on. |
|
|
GAComcastUsr
Anon
2013-Dec-26 10:27 am
said by DarkLogix:Comcast's is the highest of any US ISP (last I checked) and has even been raised (used to be 250GB now its 300GB) so they've shown they're willing to up it as times go on. Or they're seeing how much they can get away without too much backlash? |
|
DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX
1 recommendation |
DarkLogix
Premium Member
2013-Dec-26 10:31 am
said by GAComcastUsr :said by DarkLogix:Comcast's is the highest of any US ISP (last I checked) and has even been raised (used to be 250GB now its 300GB) so they've shown they're willing to up it as times go on. Or they're seeing how much they can get away without too much backlash? Hater's gona Hate its been proven by a study. |
|
GTFan join:2004-12-03 Austell, GA |
GTFan
Member
2013-Dec-26 12:44 pm
Has nothing to do with hate, this is exactly what is going on here.
Comcast learned a lesson from TWC's failed attempt to impose a new universal cap - don't do it across the entire footprint all at once, slow roll it out to keep a big mass of opposition from forming. Put a frog in pot of slowly heated water and all that.
The end result is a new model where everyone is forced to accept an artificial scarcity limit because they have few if any alternatives. Comcast is going to get their money one way or the other regardless of 'cord cutting'. |
|
GTFan |
to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:While data center bandwidth is dirt cheap "last mile" isn't
So while I too dislike caps and purely out of that dislike got BCI I do understand the need.
And then you still have jerks using D1.1 and D2 modems causing inefficient use of the last mile infrastructure. Last mile congestion can be handled in other ways and really has nothing to do with imposing an artificial cap. And those 'jerks' using older modems are doing so because they're PAID for and they work for the users that have them. Most of these folks don't know or care about the esoteric inefficiencies in the network caused by their use, it's up to Comcast to educate and incentivize them to upgrade. |
|
DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX |
DarkLogix
Premium Member
2013-Dec-26 12:57 pm
said by GTFan:ost of these folks don't know or care about Knowing is half the battle. and Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. If someone is ignorant and thus causes harm to you they're still a jerk. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:well AT&T's cap/over implementation IIRC was far more of a hindrance and would impact all users in a real way. AT&T's cap is two tiered; a lower cap (150 GB) on legacy, and a higher cap (250 GB) on U-verse HSI. Which leads to the oddity that a legacy ADSL customer with 6Mb service will hit the cap before a U-verse HSI 3Mb customer. I am convinced that the disparity is designed to give legacy ADSL users the incentive to upgrade to U-verse HSI (not to raise capital for network upgrades). Comcast's is the highest of any US ISP (last I checked) and has even been raised (used to be 250GB now its 300GB) so they've shown they're willing to up it as times go on. Which begs the question, "Why"? If only 1% will be affected, they aren't going to raise a lot of capital. It falls under my belief that they are doing because they can; the U.S. Corporate Mantra: "Charge what the traffic will bear." Comcast is the 21st Century S.P.R.R. |
|
SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
said by NormanS:Which begs the question, "Why"? If only 1% will be affected, they aren't going to raise a lot of capital. The end goal of this program isn't to raise capital, the end goal is to use the overage structure to encourage the top 1% to reduce the amount of traffic they consume. The savings achieved by slowing capacity exhaustion to more closely align with strategic planned capacity upgrades is more valuable than any revenue the overage structure will bring in. Comcast really doesn't want your overage dollars, they want you to use capacity that better aligns with the shared infrastructure model they have built. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
1 edit |
Ah. It is really just a, "usage penalty"! BTW, where, on the Comcast order site, is this 300 GB usage restriction mentioned? I don't see it listed in the "Details and Restrictions" list: Details and Restrictions.
This is where it should be mentioned to new customers. People deserve full disclosure of the service limits.
|
|
|
TAZ to Geot
Anon
2013-Dec-26 5:57 pm
to Geot
Burned as in less profit, sure, but they're still quite profitable.
Really good example: Sonic.net who only directly provides Internet and phone. $40/mo. normal price for uncapped ADSL2+ (and by uncapped, I mean both circuit profile is uncapped so the line trains at the fastest speed possible, AND no data caps) and a phone line.
Somehow despite this, they've got either the money or good enough numbers to convince someone to lend them money (the specifics of this aren't public since they're privately owned), to start rolling out gigabit FTTP.
So, I don't buy their whole argument. Also, if this is really about managing peak time usage, perhaps the cap should only be in effect during peak times? |
|
Alcohol Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI |
to Geot
said by Geot :The ISPs are getting burned twice by video streaming. First they have spent and will continue to spend a ton of cash on network upgrades to support the explosion in data use due to video streaming. Then to top it off they have customers that are dropping TV and moving all their "TV" watching to the internet side.
Other than a few highly publicized deals by Google, no one is building out anymore. It has been years since FIOS added any new areas despite the fact that they have plenty of places that are begging them to come in. There is no money in this, so ISPs are trying a variety of strategies. Caps, nickel and diming you where they can, delaying network upgrades until they have no choice, blaming 3rd parties etc etc. It is a tough business model, mega capital up front to get into a rapidly evolving game.
When someone finds a way to deliver high quality high speed internet (i.e. 50+ that doesnt drop) through the air, companies like Comcast will be screwed and billions will be written off. yes this is what happens when technology changes trend. motorola went from producing beepers to phones then smart phones. less profitable now but should they continue to cry about pagers? disagree about lack of money. there is plenty of money (check income statements) but there are government regulations that come in the way. some boards/shareholders dont care for long term growth strategies (verizon) while some encourage it (amazon). |
|
|
TAZ
Anon
2013-Dec-26 7:01 pm
I couldn't have put it better. Quit holding back technological progress (good for the 99%) for the profit of a few idiots (good for the few idiots)... |
|
GTFan join:2004-12-03 Austell, GA |
to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:said by GTFan:ost of these folks don't know or care about Knowing is half the battle. and Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. If someone is ignorant and thus causes harm to you they're still a jerk. Heh, you live in some kind of enlightened fantasy world that I'm not aware of. |
|
|
DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX |
DarkLogix
Premium Member
2013-Dec-27 10:04 am
said by GTFan:said by DarkLogix:said by GTFan:ost of these folks don't know or care about Knowing is half the battle. and Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. If someone is ignorant and thus causes harm to you they're still a jerk. Heh, you live in some kind of enlightened fantasy world that I'm not aware of. If someone does something jerk like and they don't know it they're still a jerk. |
|
GTFan join:2004-12-03 Austell, GA |
GTFan
Member
2013-Dec-27 10:17 pm
You'll figure out the world is not so black and white someday. |
|
|
to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:well AT&T's cap/over implementation IIRC was far more of a hindrance and would impact all users in a real way.
Comcast's is the highest of any US ISP (last I checked) and has even been raised (used to be 250GB now its 300GB) so they've shown they're willing to up it as times go on. Cox's cap was 400 GB when I had them 4 years ago and was never enforced. » ww2.cox.com/aboutus/newo ··· sage.coxNot sure what the cap is on Comcast's similar tier is? |
|