dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5231
share rss forum feed


roboman01

@68.56.150.x

[Caps] Comcast will have cap fees

Its coming and was reported on FoxNews this morning. Here we go again. If they implement this I will be switching back over to Centrylink. I don't use the internet that much but I don't agree with monthly caps each month.



davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS

[Caps] Re: Comcast will have cap fees

said by roboman01 :

Its coming and was reported on FoxNews this morning. Here we go again. If they implement this I will be switching back over to Centrylink. I don't use the internet that much but I don't agree with monthly caps each month.

I don't know that the sky is falling for Comcast customers. I believe Comcast will be realistic about what 95% of their customers use, and come up with a realistic data cap.

If you don't use much internet, and the cap doesn't affect you, there's really no reason to leave, unless you're standing for a principle.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Let's see if Comcast will tell you what that caps are. The last time, they said there were caps but could never say what they were.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

said by moonpuppy:

Let's see if Comcast will tell you what that caps are. The last time, they said there were caps but could never say what they were.

You mean the 250GB cap that they said was the cap?
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
reply to roboman01

This was reported a few days ago, and there is an article on the main broadband reports home page. Mainly, he did mention that they would try to keep the cap to the point where about 95% (or something like that) would not be affected. It did mention he could see it being 500G in 5 years.

»Comcast Confirms Usage Caps Going Nationwide After Trials



train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to JohnInSJ

said by JohnInSJ:

said by moonpuppy:

Let's see if Comcast will tell you what that caps are. The last time, they said there were caps but could never say what they were.

You mean the 250GB cap that they said was the cap?

or perhaps the 300GB cap that is enforced in certain areas now, and mentioned in both the terms of service and on the website account page listing your past months usage?

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
reply to roboman01

Finally, maybe now we will see our rates stabalize.



Juan Doe

@69.245.244.x

-1 recommendation

reply to roboman01

said by roboman01 :

I don't use the internet that much but I don't agree with monthly caps each month.

Customers that consume less than the cap are profitable.

Customers that consume more than the cap are not.

No business survives if they are not profitable, right?


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN

said by Juan Doe :

Customers that consume more than the cap are not.

mind explaining why?


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to roboman01

While it's weird to actually have fox news and Karl Bode See Profile reporting the same thing, they are quoting SPECULATIVE ramblings by Comcast executive VP David Cohen who said " the company would aim to set the limit at a level where "the vast majority of our customers" wouldn't be affected. He speculated that the limit might be set at 350 gigabytes or 500 gigabytes per month. A cap of that size would allow you to download or stream between 70 and 125 HD movies, which typically run about four or five gigabytes in size. "
so he's guessing at 350 to 500GB in the base package.

in that 5 year time span HE may not be in charge of that, and other more technical heads may push for higher limits.

while some sort of cap is likely, DON"T PANIC, it may not effect you or it may raise your monthly cost somewhat but still allow true highspeed internet.



camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by tshirt:

in that 5 year time span HE may not be in charge of that, and other more technical heads may push for higher limits.

 

I remain to be convinced that "other more technical heads may push for higher limits".

At the Executive VP level within a corporation, decisions are not made upon a whim. Especially the strategic decisions such as capping the monthly data allocation of HSI customers.

Five years from now, will 4K video be far more common, and requiring far more bandwidth? What other network-enabled applications will be consuming that allocated data? If so, will Comcast's HSI raise the caps appropriately?

Also, what's the sense of a "true highspeed Internet" when it just means that you reach the arbitrary data allocation cap more quickly?

andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL

1 recommendation

reply to roboman01

Comcast has responded to their own speculation:
»Comcast 'Clarifies' Comments on Usage Caps



camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by andyross:

Comcast has responded

 
I was wondering how long it would be before Comcast would stop calling it data caps.

The marketing-speak data usage policy sounds so much more consumer-friendly.


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS
reply to Juan Doe

said by Juan Doe :

Customers that consume less than the cap are profitable.

Customers that consume more than the cap are not.

No business survives if they are not profitable, right?

Sorry, but I have to respond to this. Comcast's profits are going to be relatively the same if a user uses 1GB or 250GB per month.

Generally, large ISP's are charged 1¢ (cent) per GB that flows to the internet. 2.49 cents isn't making or breaking any ISPs profit margin. the reason is because you have so many people in between, so it all averages out.

Now, if you have a person downloading multiple TB per month, then a ISP may decide it's isn't worth it for that one user, but once again, it all averages out, and they generally won't care.

However, from the ISP perspective, this isn't about users downloading so much that they can't make a profit. This is about TV, and not loosing market share to IPTV sources. So, they may be just protecting their interests.

Also, a article I just read, by a reliable source shows major ISP's have not upgraded infrastructures, in a major way since 2008. Instead they are using profits to purchase other companies, and paying stock dividends (On average). Instead of upgrading they are forcing the heavy hitters in the streaming world to pay for direct connections (peering), so they avoid having to do major renovations.

C4Xplosive

join:2002-02-21
Vancouver, WA
reply to davidc502

said by davidc502 See ProfileI don't know that the sky is falling for Comcast customers. I believe Comcast will be realistic about what 95% of their customers use, and come up with a realistic data cap.

If you don't use much internet, and the cap doesn't affect you, there's really no reason to leave, unless you're standing for a principle.

:

Considering years ago when usage caps first came into existence and the claims back then, yeah I wouldn't believe Comcast would be very realistic about their claims.

They made it a point of saying 90% of people used less than 10GB per month. They provided absolutely no data to back up such a ridiculous claim. Including the region used, how they selected the individuals, how many were used for the statistical analysis, etc.

In a era where are homes are heavily connected that 90% number is impossible to swallow without clarification. My family uses more than 5GB of data on their phones just playing around doing god knows what by mid-month. I had to literally sit them down and explain to them why the bill was ridiculous and so too was their usage. People will just get used to paying more like a water, gas, or electric bill and that's exactly what ISP's want in general. They know you wont bother looking into things deeper and will just accept it as if it's normal.

Meanwhile billions more from overcharges will come flooding into investors pockets.



Sup Foo
Premium
join:2014-05-01
Denver, CO

said by C4Xplosive:

Meanwhile billions more from overcharges will come flooding into investors pockets.

If you believe that, you should buy the stock. You'll make a killing, right?


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
reply to C4Xplosive

Yes, with cellphone usage like it is, it makes one wonder how ISP's come up with their "average" usage numbers.

I agree.


C4Xplosive

join:2002-02-21
Vancouver, WA

1 recommendation

reply to Sup Foo

said by Sup Foo:

said by C4Xplosive:

Meanwhile billions more from overcharges will come flooding into investors pockets.

If you believe that, you should buy the stock. You'll make a killing, right?

The average joe isn't going to make a killing, you know that.


NetFixer
Snarl For The Camera Please
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
reply to JohnInSJ

said by JohnInSJ:

said by moonpuppy:

Let's see if Comcast will tell you what that caps are. The last time, they said there were caps but could never say what they were.

You mean the 250GB cap that they said was the cap?

I suspect that moonpuppy See Profile was referring to the invisible cap that preceded the publicly announced 250GB cap. The cap that Comcast refused to reveal any information about, but would get a customer disconnected and banned for a year if they exceeded it.
--
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.


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to moonpuppy

said by moonpuppy:

Let's see if Comcast will tell you what that caps are. The last time, they said there were caps but could never say what they were.

Well a brief history of the Caps was

In the beginning it was just "excessive usage" with no definition, but then people sued so they made a stated cap of 250GB, then as time went on they felt the need to test ideas and for now the cap has been suspended.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to Juan Doe

said by Juan Doe :

said by roboman01 :

I don't use the internet that much but I don't agree with monthly caps each month.

Customers that consume less than the cap are profitable.

Customers that consume more than the cap are not.

No business survives if they are not profitable, right?

They've shown quite well that the cap isn't about profit or would you like the old days of an undisclosed cap to come back when they'd just perma-ban people using so much that the node was congested because of one person?
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by DarkLogix:

They've shown quite well that the cap isn't about profit or would you like the old days of an undisclosed cap to come back when they'd just perma-ban people using so much that the node was congested because of one person?

how have they shown this, exactly? as far as i can tell, caps are about nothing BUT profit.

and on banning "congesting" users, i might argue that, if Comcast sells me a service that allows me, as a single user, to overly congest their node, that's either a failure of their networking designers/engineers to build a system that can handle the bandwidth they're selling, or a failure of Comcast overselling a service that they don't have sufficient equipment available to provide.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by train_wreck:

how have they shown this, exactly? as far as i can tell, caps are about nothing BUT profit.

I guess that depends on where you start counting.
It could be equally said that there is zero profit to caps, that those dollars are spent first on upgrades (which surely exceed the total collected in cap fees) and at most maintain the profit margin on those users regular monthly fees.


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN

if there's zero profit to caps, then why do they exist in the first place?



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to train_wreck

said by train_wreck:

said by DarkLogix:

They've shown quite well that the cap isn't about profit or would you like the old days of an undisclosed cap to come back when they'd just perma-ban people using so much that the node was congested because of one person?

how have they shown this, exactly? as far as i can tell, caps are about nothing BUT profit.

and on banning "congesting" users, i might argue that, if Comcast sells me a service that allows me, as a single user, to overly congest their node, that's either a failure of their networking designers/engineers to build a system that can handle the bandwidth they're selling, or a failure of Comcast overselling a service that they don't have sufficient equipment available to provide.

Well even with the 250GB "cap" very few users were ever hit in any form but rather they kept to only going after the top .01% that were using a TON of data.

the stated cap was just because a court ruling that they couldn't ban someone for using 4TB of data when the cap was vague and not clearly stated.

Yes IIRC the lawsuit in FL over the old invisible cap was on a user that they banned for well over 2TB of usage over repeated months, and that was back in D1.1 days

their TOS have always said excessive use was not allowed, so sure you can pay for 150/20 service but unless you pay for BCI you can't transfer over 48TB in one month

(150mbit*60*60*24*31/1024/1024/8=just under 48TB)

And if you have BCI and use 48TB in a month they'll suggest strongly that you upgrade to their ent offerings.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to train_wreck

said by train_wreck:

if there's zero profit to caps, then why do they exist in the first place?

Florida Lawsuit that's why.
They wanted to be able to take action against users that abuse the system (IE max their connection for such a long amount of time that other users are effected.

Remember if you have say 150/20 and are on a 8x4 modem you're able to use over 50% of the capacity you're connected to, IE over 50% of the capacity that is shared amount many people at that point if there's just a 2nd user like that on the same 8 channels then all the other people will have crappy internet and that will lose them money.

They have since added congestion management to help prevent that issue but the caps are there so if it comes to it they can ban without getting into a losing lawsuit.
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv

KevTech
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Seattle, WA
reply to roboman01

said by roboman01 :

If they implement this I will be switching back over to Centrylink.

CenturyLink has caps on residential service too but do not yet charge a fee if you go over.

This may change when Comcast starts charging again for overages.

Excessive Use Policy
quote:
CenturyLink's download guidelines are designed to support today's download usage patterns. Our updated plans include the following download usage limits:

1.5Mbps plans - 150 Gigabytes
Plans greater than 1.5Mbps - 250 Gigabytes
Source: »internethelp.centurylink.com/int···eup.html


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
reply to train_wreck

to pay those costs for ADDITIONAL capacity, so that they don't have to spend that last 10% of the regular fees intended as profit.



train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN

i have a hard time believing that, if they didn't implement cap fees, they would not be making any profit off of internet services.



davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS

said by train_wreck:

i have a hard time believing that, if they didn't implement cap fees, they would not be making any profit off of internet services.

Caps are not about protecting ISP profits (though it will be - read below), but probably about protecting TV interests. At one time, usage CAPS were about network congestion, and it can help curtail someone from running P2P 24/7, but many of those people have gone to seedboxes anyway.

At this point, Data Caps will be about charging additional fees when users go over. It could be someone streaming HD TV content or even the new 4k content from Netflix and OR Hulu. Bottom line, it's going to be a new profit bucket IMHO.