MrChupacabra
Premium
join:2003-03-26
Florida
 ·Bright House
| reply to rdelp
Re: [News] Comcast imposing invisible caps again
Well outside of the obviousness of this link ( »www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp ) the reason you most likely got those notices is you would have had to have so much going on for your downloading that you started to negatively impact performance for the area you are in. When that happens they'll notify you to calm it down a bit.
As for complaining about it. Its kinda mute. The AUP you agree to by having service pretty much puts you at the will of the abuse department. I also assure you those folks make much more than 5.75/hour.
If the bulk of it is work related information, I'd talk to them about it to find out what type of account you will need so that you can do your work and not be bugged about bandwidth issues.
Overall I think it bites and wish they would give a ball park figure on what is considered bandwidth abuse.
That said, yeah Reston, Va is getting the first speed boost this month. Other areas though are in the dark on if they will get the same speed increases though.
--
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein |
|
mdmaddox
Premium
join:2002-12-29
Federal Way, WA
2 edits | MrChupacabra
In his post he did say he ask and upgrade to the pro account as per comcast request 2 years ago to support his habit. His usage has been about the same over the last 2 years. Sounds like Comcast doesn't want to honer their end and
support their growth in his area. It's cheaper to cut him off then to upgrade. Since Comcast is stressing their bandwidth with Voice, On demand and their own Video maybe they can tell his neighbors not to do VOD stop making phone calls so much!
In what I have read Broadband Is 4th in the pecking order |
|
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| said by mdmaddox  : It's cheaper to cut him off then to upgrade. Since Comcast is stressing their bandwidth with Voice, On demand and their own Video ma Nothing is "stressed" Great speculation though.
--
*´*)
¸.•´¸.•*') ¸.•*.
(¸.•´ (¸.•'
Technicians -Unplugged |
|
EnasYorl
Thieves World
join:2001-12-02
West
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to mdmaddox
said by mdmaddox :MrChupacabra His usage has been about the same over the last 2 years. Sounds like Comcast doesn't want to honer their end and support their growth in his area. If you read my post as long as his habits didn't affect others I'm sure they let it slide, but when it does. Then they let you know.
I would rather have a policy that allows me to burst then for them to implement some form of "bit bucket" That really chokes your rate if you download too much. |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
1 edit | reply to MrChupacabra
said by MrChupacabra :Well outside of the obviousness of this link ( » www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp ) the reason you most likely got those notices is you would have had to have so much going on for your downloading that you started to negatively impact performance for the area you are in. When that happens they'll notify you to calm it down a bit. While it may be a case of that was then and this was now, Comcast was extremely cautious in the past not to cite that specific verbiage of the TOS in their previous bandwidth abuse notifications to customers. Why they didn't is somewhat speculative, however, it doesn't take too much intuitive logic to realize that effecting the performance of other customers is a multi-faceted set of circumstances involving: 1) load placed on the system by an individual user; 2) load placed on the system by other users; and 3) capacity of the system. While it may be easy to single out a single user, capacity of the specific system segment is something wholly within Comcast's control, as is monitoring of the local segment and managing the segment with respect to load.
There is no denying that effecting the performance of other users is a clear provision of the TOS. My point is that Comcast has historically been reluctant to cite this section during abuse enforcement, largely because it infers a negative reflection on their ability to manage the effected network segment. |
|
