fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Morty
Re: Comcast usage "Abuse"?
Further, I will add to that...
If a node is tanking in performance, it sends a signal that they start to monitor that node to see "why" it's slowing down.. then they narrow it down to see if there is a heavy user on that node and if they are using more than 'typical' usage.
Just a way that I know 'some' areas finger people.
--
"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 Bumpin1ohm
said by Bumpin1ohm  :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. Keep it up.. you'll be back soon starting the next "I got a notice" thread.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
ramandala
Premium
join:2006-03-14
San Dimas, CA
1 edit | reply to anon63452
To those that asked about the mere possession of unauthorized/illicit downloaded content, no, you do not need to complete the act of sharing downloaded content such as a copyrighted movie in order to be guilty of violating the law. There are many different statutes but simply put, if it would have otherwise cost you money to obtain the content through legitimate channels, then the mere possession of the content would constitute receiving stolen property, copyright infringement, etc. Also, some content such as child porn is illegal to possess (much to the chagrin of the ACLU) without regard to rightful ownership of the digital images. No, violations do not require transfer of the content. Mere possession is a crime (thank God).
Ultimately, I find it interesting how many people complain about bandwidth caps being unfair.  Yet those same individuals have no problem commiting theft of copyrighted content.  |
|
AnacortesBoy
join:2005-08-28
| reply to Morty
said by Morty :... 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. Oh please, don't even try to compare real dedicated Internet access services with the product that Comcast provides, ESPECIALLY on a cost per bit basis alone. With a real Network providers service you get access to real knowledgeable support staff, real enforceable SLA's, real defined and obtainable bandwidth capacities, real historical bandwidth monitoring tools, real time connection monitoring from a real NOC, the ability to run any service or protocol your heart desires, unblocked, and without any insinuation of wrongdoing. I believe my last ISP even sent me a Christmas card every year.
CHI is a consumer product, and it's priced that way. They have no intension of competing with real network providers in terms of services offered, and their prices (and customer base) reflect it. |
|
sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT
| reply to djdanska
When I lived in Canada, I had Rogers back in the day and no caps, nothing crappy upload speeds but it would max out at 300k/sec. This was 1997. Today I wonder. I've got DSL and they have no caps yet. The moment it's capped is the moment I'll start shopping around for another ISP.
To the poster about suing: It's also called false advertising. |
|
PittsPgh
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by joako :But if you WERE to sue them most/many provisions in the TOS WOULD NOT be upheld by a court. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggght. Being as the They change the TOS at whim to suit thier needs, and not the customers. Makes it about worthless.
Paul
Point. Back when I signed up is was labeled and advertised as "UNLIMTED INTERNET"!!! Then they changed it to suit themselves. |
|
Big_D
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA
| reply to ramandala
said by ramandala : you do not need to complete the act of sharing downloaded content such as a copyrighted movie in order to be guilty of violating the law. Please cite your sources.
the mere possession of the content would constitute receiving stolen property, copyright infringement, etc. What property was stolen? If I legitimately purchase a CD and offer it for upload, nothing was stolen and no one can be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods. Of course I can be prosecuted for copyright infringement, but AFAIK there are laws on the books against receiving "copyright infringed" property.
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! |
|
PittsPgh
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :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. You make it out like I was talking about suing for money or damages. I'm reffering to suing for "Public Information"
Paul |
|
NeonPgh
@mellon.com
| reply to anon63452
I'm in Pittsburgh and I got the same call on Monday... tried to call them when I got home in the evening but there was nobody there.
Didn't try back and coincidentally (?) my internet connection was unavailable last night and still wasn't available this morning.
I'm going to have to call tonight if it's not back up when I get home. Maybe they cut me off.
Had Adelphia until 2 months ago and had similar usuage for a year with no complaints... Comcast takes over and now this.
Anyhow, as luck would have it I already have an appt. for Verizion to install FIOS on Saturday so screw Comcast.
What a lame company.
I'll be switching to either satelliter or Verizon TV (when offered) in the near future. This company has just lost my loyal business for the long haul. |
|
rob_in_chatt
Premium
join:2004-09-17
Chattanooga, TN | reply to anon63452
that online petition had 9 signatures AHHAHAHA |
|
anon21543
@cogentco.com
| reply to NeonPgh
I also got that call a few days ago, I have called them around 5 times and they have yet to pick up. Well last night my internet went off so of course I was scared and I called them again and once again no pick up. I then called the local number and they had a message playing saying that their was something wrong with their service and that technicians have been dispatched to fix the problem. I still don't have internet. |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs: 
| reply to anon63452
Comcast sends "usage abuse" letters as a network management tool. I don't think it's about bandwidth costs at all. Comcast has plenty of cushion with profit margins something better than 40%. So they aren't going to actually loose money on even the vast majority of the "hogs"- it could be lower now, but wholesale bandwidth is around 5 cents a gig for the big players.
What they are afraid of is tech visits. It's gonna cost them far more for truck rolls to handle subscriber complaints caused by overuse than the couple of extra bucks for Johnny downloading 40 more gigs.
Although it would be great if Comcast would spell out what their limits are, they really can't because: a) all their areas aren't equal (infrastructure, subscriber numbers & usage) and b) it would be handing their competitors a club to beat them with.
They had better have solid bandwidth expansion plans in place however. It seems that every electronic device now has some way to touch the net. To give one example, every xbox with live is now a VOD movie player, capable of grabbing 4+GB 480p HD movies. If they aren't ready, it will be a nightmare for them. |
|
Bumpin1ohm
Bumpin1ohm
Premium
join:2002-07-15
Aurora, CO
clubs:
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by Bumpin1ohm :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. Keep it up.. you'll be back soon starting the next "I got a notice" thread. if that happens, comcast can say good bye to the $175 a month i pay them every month for my packages.
i will not hesitate to switch back to my free dsl. its slower at 3mbit x 768kbit but hey, its free.
i was trying to get a notice that month actually, but nothing ever came.
f*** comcast.  ill go vonage, dish, dsl. i get discounts on ALL of them anyway. for now im just too lazy to change, but all it takes is for them to try to cut me off. im gone. and are any new customers wanting comcast internet that walk into my store.
--
Loud and Clear |
|
hbreg
Premium
join:2000-11-09
Feasterville Trevose, PA
| reply to sd70mac666
said by sd70mac666 :When I lived in Canada, I had Rogers back in the day and no caps, nothing crappy upload speeds but it would max out at 300k/sec. This was 1997. Today I wonder. I've got DSL and they have no caps yet. The moment it's capped is the moment I'll start shopping around for another ISP. To the poster about suing: It's also called false advertising. What is false about the advertising? Even when Comcast had "unlimited" in the TOS it refers to unlimited access to the Internet, not unlimited amounts of bandwidth. There is a big difference. Remember back in the day when AOL advertised unlimited access to the internet but their network couldn't handle it they were in violation because they couldn't provide what they advertised. That was false advertising. I don't know when and where unlimited in the TOS went from meaning access to the internet to bandwidth.
Also when and where has Comcast ever used the word "Cap?" They notify people when they degrade the network, not when they use so much bandwidth. They tell people they are downloading on average 300% or whatever of other users not that they used a certain amount of bandwidth and hit this secretive magical threshold. Rodgers actually stated a Cap and what it was and look how long that lasted and all of the wonderful press that got.
I know i don't want Comcast to ever use the word cap or state a figure. 99% of people in this forum would scream bloody murder about how Comcast is screwing them because I am sure no matter what the number is people would yell it was too low.
I do not work for or affiliated with Comcast in any which way shape or form except being a customer for 20 years.
--
I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. -- Judge Harold T. Stone
Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot. |
|
anon21543
@cogentco.com
| reply to anon21543
Also, I live in northern NJ. About a year ago I downloaded around 1.5 Tbs of data in a month and I have gone over the Tb mark probably one other time and the have never said anything about that to me. This past month I was uploading more than usual. I uploaded 30 gigs when my normal was around 10. I went over the 30 gig mark once before around 4-5 years ago and they mailed me a letter stating that would close my internet account if it happened again. |
|
yettavr6
join:2004-07-26
Plymouth Meeting, PA
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :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. The "provision" you speak of means nothing. No one can take away your right to sue them. When I sued an Arizona-based company they pointed out the fact that papers i signed stated I could only sue them in Arizona. I got around that with no trouble at all. Of course I work for a decent sized lawfirm, which didn't hurt. And as someone said above, this "provision" certainly could not prevent a class action lawsuit for the good of the public. |
|
Liar
@gte.net | reply to DMS1
No, it's to let people know that Comcast is using false (or at the very least misleading) advertising. |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to Liar
Re: Comcast usage "Abuse"?
said by Liar :
No, it's to let people know that Comcast is using false (or at the very least misleading) advertising. I just don't see enough of their advertising to know what they are saying that is false or misleading. Do they talk about bandwidth limits in their advertising?
--
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali invites you to wear a burqa for peace. |
|
jpboss
join:2003-09-13
Conyers, GA
| reply to anon21543
As much as I pay for thier Top Services both in TV and HSI and as much trouble as I have had with the service in the past 6 months, I would laugh in their face if they sent me a letter or called me. I would say, "Please don't throw me in the briar patch!" What a crock of Comcrapalastic crapola. |
|
