PittsPgh
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
| reply to joako
Re: Comcast usage "Abuse"?
said by joako  :But if you WERE to sue them most/many provisions in the TOS WOULD NOT be upheld by a court. Has anyone ever sued to have the so called invisible cap limits revealed??
Paul |
|
rob2006
join:2006-11-07
Austell, GA
| well come on a regular user to them don't download porno,p2p,warez,movies,music etc now if you start downloading all of that. you will get into problems with them setting a cap. if i was an isp i would do the same. otherwise i would have lets say 25 users from a node using 99.8 % of the pipe.
it wont be fair. |
|
spk037
join:2006-09-02
Orlando, FL
| reply to anon63452
ok apologists, explain to me why comcast cannot publish their limits.
I dont see many people complaining that there is a cap as much as its an invisible, undocumented, moving target, apparently enforced at a whim ....
Is that so hard to understand ???? |
|
djdanska
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Glen Ellyn, IL
clubs:
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·T-Mobile US
 ·A + Net
 ·Mediacom
·RCN CABLE
| said by spk037 :ok apologists, explain to me why comcast cannot publish their limits. I dont see many people complaining that there is a cap as much as its an invisible, undocumented, moving target, apparently enforced at a whim .... Is that so hard to understand ???? If they did have a hard set limit, other providers would use it against comcast in a heartbeat. Maybe they rather upset the small amount of people than potentially upset the entire population of comcast hsi users. (when they really are looking for a small population of users)
That or it will turn into how some of the canadian isp's operate.
--
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
|
Big_D
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA
| reply to spk037
said by spk037 :ok apologists, explain to me why comcast cannot publish their limits. I don't know, probably because they don't want to. Personally I could care less what the limit is; if I use too much Comcast will tell me. Until then why worry about it.
One point that has been made in the past is if Comcast were forced to declare a hard limit (there isn't one, from what we've seen it's a soft limit that varies based on unknown factors) they would set it a lot lower then whatever the current invisible limit might be.
Why, might you ask? Well, once the subs know the limit, they will want to make sure they are downloading every last byte they are paying for. Much like with a cellphone plan...before I had rollover minutes (thank you cingular) I would make sure on the last day of the cycle that I used up every last minute that I had left in my plan.
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! |
|
jackbean
join:2002-03-21
Sharon Hill, PA | I here that you mine as well get what u pay for |
|
spk037
join:2006-09-02
Orlando, FL
1 edit | reply to Big_D
said by Big_D :Why, might you ask? Well, once the subs know the limit, they will want to make sure they are downloading every last byte they are paying for. ok so granny has an extra 10g she didnt use, so she'll go on a massive granny porn download binge to get her money's worth ??
of course most of the month she only sends emails to her grandkids.
Most people will not have any idea what they have used, nor care. I think if BB providers are going to cut service they have an obligation to let people what what the limit is, not just say we know it when we see it. As previously mentioned, what do they expect with ever increasing dl speeds and the availability of streaming media ?? If capacity is a problem, maybe they should limit dl speeds to 3 -5 megs until their networks can carry the load
Fixed uneven quote tags. ~sorto' |
|
jackbean
join:2002-03-21
Sharon Hill, PA | The hope to sign up the grannies of the world since they just check email and go on ebay |
|
Big_D
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA
| reply to spk037
"As previously mentioned, what do they expect with ever increasing dl speeds and the availability of streaming media"
Don't you think the limit is increased as the speeds, capacity, and typical usage expands?
To all of the people posting against Comcast in this thread, how many of you actually lost service for downloading too much?
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18
2 edits | reply to jackbean
There is no set limit, it varies per area (usually looked at the top 1% of network users).
A standard limit for a residential connection would be 80GB per month. You could go over that limit, for a month or two no problems, but if you are constantly above that limit, it is of my opinion you should be paying more.
80GB is the equivalent of:
17 DVDs (4.7GB) OR
20,480 MP3 (4MB Each) OR
2,796,202 Medium-Large Pictures (30KB JPEG)
This seems more then enough for at home, residential use.
Most users who get letters or calls from the Comcast abuse department are using upwards of 180 - 250GB/Month. |
|
Bumpin1ohm
Bumpin1ohm
Premium
join:2002-07-15
Aurora, CO
clubs: | negative. i racked up ~180GB over the period of 2 days on my 8mbit connection.
it really isnt a lot. especially how cheap technology is these days.
--
Loud and Clear |
|
dscrap
join:2006-12-13
Vineland, NJ
1 edit | I received the same call 2 days ago, also in S Jersey. Finally talked to a CSR and was told I was getting one warning and then my service would be terminated. They said I used 330 GB... Hmm, big number right? I don’t think so. Well I do download some music and watch a lot of youtube video. I also have VOIP and 2 ReplayTV's that are connected to the net with Wirns to download and share TV shows. I have been known to rent a few movies at movielink and I do a bit of online gaming as well... So in today’s digital age what’s the big deal? Comcast has this invisible usage line that they can basically try and control you with. They are pushing their HSI access, but slap you on the wrist if you use too much. I have several different web sites and upload a lot of pictures for my friends and family to boot.
I think that the threat from Comcast is ridiculous and unfair to those of us that are living the digital lifestyle. I am going to email my local news and see if they can maybe do a story or attempt to get some kind of definitive cap from Comcast. I’m not sure which news station I will contact, but there are several in the Philadelphia area that run consumer segments.
How many others have received this call in the S Jersey / Philadelphia area? The more emails to the news station the better. So reply with you details and suggestions so we can get this a little organized first… The more complaints they hear about the better.
Found this petition online, its a start...
»www.petitiononline.com/no2cmcst/···ion.html
Thanks |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| said by dscrap :I am going to email my local news and see if they can maybe do a story or attempt to get some kind of definitive cap from Comcast. So you want to get your local media to highlight the fact that you have been slapped on the wrist for excessive use of a service that you pay no more for than anyone else. Do you really expect to get any sympathy when people realise that they are subsidizing your extravagance? |
|
dscrap
join:2006-12-13
Vineland, NJ
1 edit | DMS1,
Who's extravagance? I have broadband and use it as it was meant to be used. Comcast should not be allowed to do what they are doing. If they want to set a cap, then so be it. But they need to tell users what it is and give them the ability to check the status of their usage. This thing with receiveing a treatning and condesending phone call is plain and simply wrong. They are telling people they are using too much, but refuse to tell them how much is too much.
Everyone is pushing the net for movies, games, VOIP, music, video clips, relationships, myspace, software downloads, etc. What do they expect. There are people like myself that like all things digital. |
|
AnacortesBoy
join:2005-08-28
| reply to Bumpin1ohm
I don't think people have much issue with the concept of a limit (be it invisible, arbitrary, unreasonable or published). The major problem with the current Comcast capacity management is twofold. One, they lump everyone who falls into this 1% group as a Abuser (and calls them such to their face by reps from the Security Assurance group) and two, the process they have built to deal with Abusers is, like someone pointed out, not being executed with a purpose of educating you as to the TOS or even keep you as a customer. Having experienced it first hand, I can say it is meant to be intimidating.
I would speculate that the vast major of this top 1% target group actually have no clue they are being evil. I'm not going to argue who is at fault for that (be it Comcasts advertising that certainly doesn't suggest a limit, or consumers that don't review their TOS with their lawyers and set up monitoring equipment to review the entire households activity, and asking their neighbors how much they use so as to keep in line with the rest of the node), the important fact is most of those people would change their habits if the first call or contact was more in an educational vein, instead of a mysterious call from an admittedly shadow group (regular support that I spoke with knows little about them), to make accusations you have no opportunity to defend or question, and then threaten with service termination of the next offense, never mind you don't know how you got to this offense.
I think someone nailed it. It appears from my experiences Comcast has made a conscious decision to drive away or intimidate usage of this target top 1% as one means of managing bandwidth consumption. It probably costs too much to distinguish the real abusers from the uninformed, and in the end, the conciquence to Comcast is the same. That was certainly my first impression. Think about it. The real abusers could not care less if they get this call. In fact, they are expecting it, and they are expecting to get cut off. So this call is not meant to warn abusers, it's meant to intimidate clueless users into using less.
I think instead Comcast should be looking for ways to leverage the pool of "high capacity consumers" (ie, service abusers in Comcast speak), who are by the way probably also represent the more technical elite of your consumer base (I am not a criminal, I just use my service the way I need too). Offer a power user tier of service. That same first contact call could instead be used to migrate high bandwidth consumers into a more profitable profile. As it is now, it's just pissing them off.
And please, get these thugs from Comcast Security Assurance back to doing something more useful, because their interpersonal communications skills really need some work.
By the way, if you get one of these calls, and you feel the Comcast rep is anything less than courteous, professional, non-judgemental and non-abusive (and in my mind, even using the word ABUSE violates those standards), get their name and the ticket number you are being contacted under, hang up the phone, call the regular support, file a complaint, and indicate you would be happy to speak to someone from Comcast Security that is trained to make such calls and can conduct themselves in a respectable manner. The right to be verbally abusive on my dime is certainly not in the Comcast TOS.
A final thought. I don't believe for a minute they really call the top 1% of bandwidth users every month. Do the math. 1% of 12M is 120,000 customers. So why can't they be honest and indicate how you really got on their "happy thoughts" list this month? My guess is you are on some report for a number of months and show a pattern of high capacity usage. If that just doesn't scream of an up-sale opportunity, then nothing does. One of the Security Assurance reps said something that I thought was intriguing. Customer Network usage is only accessible by the Security Assurance group. I would take that to mean Marketing and Sales managers are excluded from the reports. Maybe if Comcast put the Security Assurance Director on commission for awhile, he/she would understand the value of the information they are sitting on.
(and YES, I am suggesting that as a "High Capacity Consumer", I am a segment of the market that can be profitable. But as an "Abuser", I'm your worst nightmare. It's all perspective.) |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18
1 edit | Would you be willing to pay $190 month to keep your Comcast connection? I ask this, because for the same amount of bandwidth you alone use, I'd venture most people would use only 1/4 of it.
Why would any company want to get 45.95 when they could get $200? And for you to use that amount of bandwidth from any actual ISP (non-residential) you would be paying in upwards of $350-$750 depending on what's available in your area. |
|
Wottcc
Premium
join:2004-11-02
Greeley, CO
 ·MSTAR
| reply to anon63452
Its always seemed to me a better way to handle this would be to throttle users who exceed a certain amount of data transfered in a month to a slower speed. They could really slow heavy users down without having to make any calls. It would seem that finding a way to keep a customer without allowing them to degrade the network would be the ideal solution. I dont imagine anyone who gets an abuse call is going to keep CATV or phone service with comcast. |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18
| said by Wottcc :Its always seemed to me a better way to handle this would be to throttle users who exceed a certain amount of data transfered in a month to a slower speed. They could really slow heavy users down without having to make any calls. It would seem that finding a way to keep a customer without allowing them to degrade the network would be the ideal solution. I dont imagine anyone who gets an abuse call is going to keep CATV or phone service with comcast. They'd have to re-write the ToS for that. Otherwise they'd have to downgrade their price as well, and with that, most people would cancel if they were paying $25/mo for 128/128  It's one of those things, some people are uneducated and don't listen. Some are smart, but somehow think that they are entitled to it. And some people are smart, and know what they are doing is wrong. While some people *may* have legitimate reasons to download 200GB, several months back to back... MOST don't -- that means they're downloading illegal content, which is a liability to Comcast. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to joako
said by joako :But if you WERE to sue them most/many provisions in the TOS WOULD NOT be upheld by a court. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggght.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to PittsPgh
said by PittsPgh :said by joako :But if you WERE to sue them most/many provisions in the TOS WOULD NOT be upheld by a court. Has anyone ever sued to have the so called invisible cap limits revealed?? Paul Mind telling us how you are going to "sue" Comcast when there is a provision (legal provision I might add) that you agree to stating that you will use arbitration to resolve disputes. Further, it almost takes an act of congress (literally) to get something out of arbitration and into a court room.
Good luck with that law suit idea.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
