how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
502468 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 sortofageekNot TroublePremium,Mod
join:2001-08-19
There & Then
kudos:14
Comcast HSI
Comcast Cable TV
Team Helix
Distributed Comput..
Linksys
4 edits | The Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management Topic 02-17-2010: Much has changed in the way Comcast handles bandwidth and congestion management since this topic started. Possibly BBR posters have been an influence in that. We like to think so. 
I believe the need for one huge thread has diminished and there are a number of reasons why individual topics might be more useful.
I am going to lock this thread and add it to the forum links. If further interesting topics appear, I'll try to catch them and add a link to them in this post. Please let me know via IM if you see one I don't catch.
Let's still try not to beat the dead horse over those things already beaten to death. Additionally, let's try not to have a multitude of current threads going about the same subject.
Thanks to everyone for your participation and patience with one another in this long-lived monster series of discussions.
~sorto'
yt  gives good advice here ---> »Google before you post
Refer also to this forum FAQ: »Comcast High Speed Internet FAQ »Does Comcast have bandwidth use limits?
Related Forum Topics In the Last Year: »/forum/comcast···days=365
Related News:
03-03-2010 : »Comcast Still Advertising Capped Service As Unlimited?
11-30-2011: »The 'Bandwidth Hog' is a Myth
Please notice the links to previous subtopics below:
Does Comcast have a useage cap?
»Usage cap?
»[Caps] Monthly cap?
Reported warnings/disconnects for exceeding cap
»Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month
»Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection
»Account cut off at 250G? Correction: 715G
»I got a warning from Comcast
»So, has anyone gone over the cap?
»Anyone got letter from Comcast ...
»I got the call ... 680G last month
»Got the call, 850G this month
»50/10 - Just got banned.
»When do I get the call or will I?
»Comcast banned me today 2nd warning 680 GB
»Got the letter for exceeding 250GB/month
»I got the call ... 750GB
»Got the call, 750gb last month
»Service cancelled
»After shut off, allowed to get business class with no hassles
»Got the call, 800GB
High BW Use, No Call Yet
»The dreaded call from Comcast
»Got the warning - 2 TB
»I got call today .. 400 gb last month
»Got the call, usage was ~400gb, ~800gb, ~1.5tb
»Got my bandwidth warning from comcast, a few questions
»[Caps] the dreaded call - 1,817G
Will I get a bandwidth limit abuse call ...?
»Would I get the call If...
»[Caps] what is the real world cap for comcast today
Will Comcast provide a bandwidth meter? jlivingood says "yes." Here ---> »Re: Bandwidth Limits - Meter
December 2, 2008 update: »Comcast To Offer Bandwidth Use Tracker In January
»Exclusive Screens Of Comcast's New Bandwidth Meter
January 2, 2009 update:
»Comcast Mum On New Bandwidth Tracker
July 24, 2009:
»Comcast Usage Meter Still A No Show
»Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet
October 30, 2009:
»Comcast Bandwidth Meter Still A No Show
»Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
December 1, 2009:
»Data Usage Meter Launched
January 8, 2010:
»HSI Usage meter
January 11, 2010:
»Comcast Usage Meter Availability Expands
January 14, 2010:
»As Predicted, Comcast Usage Meter Expands
Subtopics about "The Bandwidth Meter":
»Bandwidth Monitor for Computers-Suggestions?
»Cap starts today...Wheres da meter???
»Will we be offered a bandwith monitor?
»I need a bandwidth meter for my mac. Please Help.
»Bandwidth Monitors Again
»Is there an update on the Comcast bandwidth meter?
»Bandwidth Meter???
»Where is the Comcast Bandwidth meter?
»The Bandwidth Meter, is it vaporware?
»Doubtful Comcast will ever release the bandwidth meter
»No meter from Comcast, can I exceed the cap?
»"I don't know what's taking Comcast so long with the meter ..."
»Service is metered, but no meter offered
»The Elusive Meter
»Wish someone would sue Comcast - no meter yet
»Metered billing system, discussed many times
»If metered, What cost would you pay?
»Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?
»bandwidth usage monitor?
»Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.
»Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
»Change of Primary User Account Resets Usage Meter?
»Monthly Cap- What period?
»Without a meter, Comcast can't enforce the cap
»missing bandwidth meter
»bandwidth question
»Comcast usage meter not showing in account and couple more?s
When does the meter start/stop each month?
»Comcast/Sandvine Traffic Managment System Evolves
»When does the bandwidth meter start for the billing period?
»Comcast Montly 250GB up/down limit - when does it reset?
»Meter Stop/Start Time Subtopic #3
»Comcast Monthly CAP Time Rotation
»Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?
»What is a calendar month? (Bandwidth Tracking)
»Meter by calendar month illustrated
Meter Accuracy
»How do we know the CC tracking/quota system is accurate?
»How do we know the CC meter is accurate?
Metered Billing?
»Metered billing system, discussed many times
»If metered, What cost would you pay?
»Metered billing again
»Comcast Customers: Would You Prefer Metered Billing?
Subtopics about the new Congestion Management System:
Comcast Clarification on Network Management System
»Question about new throttling system
»Comcast does not "throttle" YouTube or Hulu
»[NEWS]Comcast quits throttling bit torrent
»Comcast does not "throttle" Netflix
»[Resolved] Comcast messing with my torrent?
»Comcast Caps/Throttle
»Bittorrent activity causes disconnects
»[Congestion Mgmt] Comcast checking BT port
»Can exceeding the cap affect your speeds?
»[Connectivity] Throttle on torrent?
»CC's Protocol-Agnostic Congestion Management System Draft
»M-Lab test results
»Blatant Throttling
»Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
»Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
»This is how Comcast's congestion management works
»Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?
»What's the congestion management system for again?
Congestion Management System - Is it throttling?
»[Speed] Does Comcast Throttle Following Large Download Sessions
»Comcast QOS system is not a "throttling" system
Another post from jlivingood inre throttling
»Is the Comcast Congestion Management System Throttling?
»Is the Comcast Congestion Management System Throttling?
»Here we go again about bandwidth throttling ...
»Re: Here we go again about bandwidth throttling ...
»Re: Here we go again about bandwidth throttling ...
»FTP throttling? (No, it is some other issue)
»time limited throttling
»Seems like Usenet getting throttled
»Throttling?
»Comcast and BitTorrent
»[Connectivity] Comcast throttling for VoIP?
Caps and Business Class:
»Business Class Prices and Bandwidth Limitations
»Comcast business capped ?
»[Business] Comcast Monthly Download/Upload Limits
»I was told business class might get bandwidth limits
»How can Comcast offer no-cap business tier for 20-30 more?
»Comcast Business accounts are limited!
»Comcast business
»Why doesn't the business tier have a 250G cap?
»I can't get business tier, not offered here by sturmvogel
11-06-09 Business Class Accounts not capped per comcastcares
»Business class overuse termination question
»Want more than a 250G limit allows, get business class
»Comcast Business Internet no cap?
»[Caps] No data cap on Business plan?
The caps are to protect Comcast TV profits?
»The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~
»Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options
»Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings
»Again, the 250 GB Cap is to prevent competition with CC TV
High Bandwidth Options and the Cap
»Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications
Caps and DOCSIS 3.0:
»What is Comcast word on the 250GB cap for the Docsis 3 tiers
»DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far
»[Speed] is the bandwidth cap applicable on 50/10 plan
»DOCSIS 3 Tiers and 250GB Monthly Bandwidth Limit?
Caps and DOCSIS 2.0
»What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?
Caps and CDV
»[CDV] download caps and comcast voice
Netflix and the Cap
»Netflix streaming movies and the cap
»Netflix streaming and the 250 GB cap
»Netflix bandwidth - Is 1GB/hr at HD accurate?
Alternative, if the cap is too low for you
»If the cap is too limited, consider commercial or other svc
»If the cap is too limited, move
»Dial-up has no caps
»Once labeled as abuser, you can't get business tier
Cable Vs. DSL and the cap
»Cable internet may be the dying tehchology
The Crystal Ball or Predicting the Future of Bandwidth Management
»What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?
»Repeat: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years
»11-10-2009 IETF meeting/Internet Society lunch briefing
See also:
»Split from DOCSIS 3.0 thread - more bandwidth limits
»Have any Comcast employees burst through the cap?
»Wouldn't it be cool if they upped the cap
»There Is No Cap
»The Factual Basis of the "Cap"
»Prediction: The 250G Cap Will Increase
»Again, I Am A Heavy User
»So why does Comcast bother saying 250GB? - by IPPlanMan
»I still think there is a cap - by IPPlanMan
»Usage Caps
»Comcast vs. Cablevision caps
»[Speed] Speed tests count against the cap
»Comcast doesn't want you to use your connection, just pay for it
»Off topic cap talk
»[Speed] Download cap for economy Comcast internet?
»Where is the Comcast claim to "unlimited?"
»Speed is no help if the bandwidth cap is low
»How can someone use 250G in a month?
»Same service for years, then CC suddenly imposed the cap
»Comcast Should Invest In Their Network instead of the Meter
»An observation on this thread...
»Is Comcast a monopoly?
»July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~
»Is cable a utility?
»More on monopolies
»If all use their limits at once, how does the cap help?
»Bandwidth Limits - Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS/Cox/ATT
»Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future
»Comcast Highspeed 2GO bandwidth cap?
»Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner
»What's the congestion management system for again?
»250 GB is meaningless
»The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising
»If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap
»Higher Speeds Force Some to Download More?
»What happens if I go over 250GB bandwidth use?
»End the Cap!
»almost nobody hitting a 250gb cap is doing ONLY legal activity
Sept 2010: »Thoughts about comcast - another bandwidth thread
January 2012: »[Caps] Please sign the petition to raise or eliminate the cap
April 2012: »[Caps] What do you think Comcast should do now about its data ca
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends . | |
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Williamstown, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here Well, it looks like the majority of users feel that a defined 250GB cap is preferable to one that is movable depending on a concept like "harm other users".
The one thing most people want to see is some way to check on how far along you are to reaching the cap as the month goes by.
A hard cap isn't very useful if there isn't a way to check what you are using (according to Comcast's database - the database they would use to disconnect you if you go over the cap).
Maybe the Comcast reps that post here will carry that request back to management. Any goodwill that Comcast can garner by having provided a hard cap would be lost without a tool to check on usage.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| reply to sortofageek
Another FAQ people should have a look at: »help.comcast.net/content/faq/Fre···xceeding
I'm fine with this cap and for those who do complain about it, just be glad you don't have Roadrunner or live in a different country with much worse caps.
--
»Celestia-this is a REALLY COOL program!!! | | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to sortofageek
said by from a locked thread :
The new AUP seems FAIRLY clear. It's nice to see clear caps established instead of the "cut your service by half" B.S. That's actually a good point that I've not seen anyone else make. The number is most helpful to someone who just "got the call." | |
 pianotechPianotechPremium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
 ·Vonage
 ·Comcast
| reply to fonzbear2000
When you think about it, every other commodity or utility we buy is metered. Water, natural gas, oil, gasoline, electricity, cell phone minutes....
Why do we expect bandwidth to be different?
--
For a list of the ways technology has not made life better, please press 3. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
2 edits | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:Well, it looks like the majority of users feel that a defined 250GB cap is preferable to one that is movable depending on a concept like "harm other users". Let's not kid ourselves -- most Comcast users don't know about the cap. And both you and I seem too passionate to accurately judge either way.
That said, I can't completely hate it, and if Comcast is really determined to have a cap as a judge of abuse, it ought to be (1) disclosed, (2) high, (3) capable of being checked, and (4) increased as consumer demand for bandwidth normally increases. With me, Comcast's cap passes on only the first two of those four points.said by Linklist:The one thing most people want to see is some way to check on how far along you are to reaching the cap as the month goes by. A hard cap isn't very useful if there isn't a way to check what you are using (according to Comcast's database - the database they would use to disconnect you if you go over the cap). I've read most of the responses as well and for those willing to accept the cap, a way to check on their own usage seems to be the number-one request/demand/need/want.
...and back to your first line...
said by Linklist:...preferable to one that is movable depending on a concept like "harm other users". .... Let's remember that's what this was about.
Comcast first started this across-the-board threatening and disconnection of higher-bandwidth users 5 years ago, based on their TOS provision against someone using the service in a way that negatively impacted it. The trouble is, they were using the bandwidth amount without ever showing a negative impact -- they simply rationalized that someone who was using over (some undisclosed number) that they simply must be causing an undue impact. That undisclosed number became known as the "invisible cap" because it was a "defacto" cap and remained absolutely undisclosed except through making the same hard-to-read inference to that "impact" part of Comcast's TOS.
Now, 5 years later, we have a number. Good? No, that wasn't the problem! If that's what they wanted to solve, then they just made their service worse. They're still not proving that the users that they are kicking off the service have caused any negative impact. Instead, they've disclosed a number used in executing this lazy (or economical) method. By doing so, they have now limited a previously unlimited service. But in a very Comcastic way, they also talk out of the other side of their mouth and say that nothing has changed. They won't warn anyone or cut them off unless they're exceeding 250 GB and are one of the "top users" (a threshold that they don't define). If one had a suspicious mind, one might wonder if this is to disarm any claim of bait-and-switch by both being able to disclose a limit yet also be able to claim that there isn't a limit since they're really grading on a curve.
That's not as eye-rolling as "we don't throttle," but it's close.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | reply to pianotech
said by pianotech:When you think about it, every other commodity or utility we buy is metered. Water, natural gas, oil, gasoline, electricity, cell phone minutes.... Why do we expect bandwidth to be different? Because, at this point in time, HSI is a luxury.
When it does become a utility, expect metered billing.
My bill will be way less than most other people, I almost look forward to it. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:Comcast first started this across-the-board threatening and disconnection of higher-bandwidth users 5 years ago, based on their TOS provision against someone using the service in a way that negatively impacted it. The trouble is, they were using the bandwidth amount without ever showing a negative impact -- they simply rationalized that someone who was using over (some undisclosed number) that they simply must be causing an undue impact. That undisclosed number became known as the "invisible cap" because it was a "defacto" cap and remained absolutely undisclosed except through making the same hard-to-read inference to that "impact" part of Comcast's TOS. That sounds like you are making a few leaps of faith there. Abuse is handled on a case by case basis from what I've seen. If many users start complaining about slow speeds off a certain node it is passed over to abuse for investigation. Or conversely if the market engineers notice that a node with only 50 subscribers is routinely running hot on their capacity reports it is passed over to abuse.
I don't think the top .01% are kicked off every year for abuse or even get "the call." If that were the case I would imagine we would see quite a few more posts here complaining about it. It seems to me that it would be a waste of resources to investigate every sub who went over 250gb UNLESS they were actually causing an issue. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to dadkins
said by dadkins:Because, at this point in time, HSI is a luxury. When it does become a utility, expect metered billing. You brought that up in one of the now-closed threads. I disagree with you on the "utility" designation (I think it is), but agree with you that it's a "luxury." In my non-authoritative single-perspective value set, it's about the same as POTS service. And increasing affordable access to broadband is a federal priority, in lip-service if not also in fact.
In that prior message, I gave the example of a street-lighting district. In that example, the prices are fixed. Being a utility doesn't require metered billing. It doesn't make sense to meter street lights.
For certain, technology will continue to get faster, or cheaper, or both. Hopefully that's not debatable. Our various appetites for it might seem like an equalizing factor, but they're volatile between us. They fluctuate among users as gaming gets quite a bit more dynamic, video moves back and forth between streaming and "burst-and-store" over the years, parents monitor their kids by watching live AV streams from devices attached to their clothing, and who knows what else.
I think for that reason alone, this debate will continue. Those that don't use a lot right now will use a lot 5 years from now, and vice versa. Right now, the streetlights are on and I'm paying for them, but someone else is making greater use of them than I am.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to netcool
said by netcool :
That sounds like you are making a few leaps of faith there. Abuse is handled on a case by case basis from what I've seen. That was my sense a few years ago, but lately it seems more like "status quo." How confident are you that it's still been running case-by-case?said by netcool :
I don't think the top .01% are kicked off every year for abuse or even get "the call." If that were the case I would imagine we would see quite a few more posts here complaining about it. It seems to me that it would be a waste of resources to investigate every sub who went over 250gb UNLESS they were actually causing an issue.
I think the number is low-ball. As someone said previously, it really is a very useful number for someone who has just received "the call."
If it turns out that your sense on this is right, My God! What an overreaction this all has been!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| said by funchords: How confident are you that it's still been running case-by-case? Fairly confident.
said by funchords:If it turns out that your sense on this is right, My God! What an overreaction this all has been! An overreaction on who's part? The small faction of people who made a stink about getting kicked off or Comcast itself?
Lawsuits like this:
»jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jac···y38.html
Probably encouraged Comcast to publicly state a cap. Not to mention all the scrutiny the FCC investigation drummed up. The FCC wanted Comcast to be as transparent as they could about their network management policies so I think the cap is partly a result of that. | |
thumbs down from:
Linklist
| reply to sortofageek
My 2 cents.....
This is the beginning of the end of the free and open Internet as we know it. They will take an inch at a time until we are paying by the Gb. | |
approval from:
Linklist
| said by MADBOOM :
My 2 cents.....
This is the beginning of the end of the free and open Internet as we know it. They will take an inch at a time until we are paying by the Gb.
The sky isn't falling. There was an invisible cap before, now there is a stated cap. This is what many people were asking for here. As funchords noted I think the cap is somewhat lowball as well; the invisi-caps seemed to be a bit higher.
When people look at the cap I think they should be asking themselves if it's reasonable. At this time I do believe 250gb is reasonable. It would be a good idea for Comcast to state how they plan on keeping the cap fair (i.e re-evaluating it every so often etc.) | |
thumbs down from:
Linklist
| reply to sortofageek
with HD coming in to use more they should increase their ability to provide more bandwidth available, not go backwards and put a cap, that is Stupid.The more content we use and look at in HD the more bandwidth we need, Come ON! it's not enough bandwidth.And thats not being greedy but it's a FACT because of the Media we now use. | |
| reply to sortofageek
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here More and more people will be using HD VOD services, especially now that boxes such as Xbox360 and Playstation 3 have this functionality. Don't forget download-able content for games and multi-user families.
250GB may seem like more than enough overhead for some folks, but really how does that break down per day? Per hour and minute?
Comcast sells me a line that is 8MB / 1MB, and for the most part, it's pretty close to that. But they also include their "Speedbooster" technology that supposedly provides a subscriber with a quick burst of download speed up to (12MB?) though I have never felt that.
If what I calculate is pretty close, a "subscriber" (multi-family, anyone?) would constantly need to saturate their line just over 5MB ~ 6MB every minute to hit that cap in a given month.
Does that mean Comcast is over-selling their network? Not necessarily. They are selling you a line that is "able to" move that fast "whenever" you want, and I understand that. For the longest time, that "able to" and "whenever" has pretty much lend itself to be experienced as "all the time" and "anytime", and this is why some of us are now upset because it hasn't been a problem for ANYONE, at least, no one in our neighborhood (or Comcast for that matter) has complained about excessive usage and/or service quality.
Personally, I don't appreciate the fact that Comcast's arguing points usually amount to "protecting quality of service for your entire neighborhood" when nobody has ever complained at all. (Yes, I sternly requested they tell me if they had calls for service issues in my area and the representative finally confessed that no one had. It may have been a lie just to appease my repeated request but it was said.) Basically I don't appreciate it when they label my usage as abuse when it hasn't caused any problem at all.
Then the rep suggested I order a business class account, which offers faster speeds. Why on earth would I do that when
1) I do not run a business
2) I can not afford a business class account
3) How can increasing my download rate save me from a usage limit?
You may label me and my family as "internet hogs" but in our defense we are simply utilizing what we pay for and that is not wrong. | |
| reply to pianotech
You are almost correct on the water/gas/oil but you are way off on the cell phone minutes and internet bandwidth!
Cell phone "minutes" has/is/and always will be a scam. The problem is when everyone is doing it and you don't have a choice well...you don't have a choice. So if you want a cell phone, you pay for a minimum usage so to speak. Because if everyone paid only for what they use, the cell phone companies would be making any money.
It doesn't cost any less or any more to the cell phone company whether you talk for 1 minute or 600 minutes a month.
It's not like you are "wearing out" the transmitting tubes
Same thing with bandwidth, 10Kb,10MB or 100GB, it not causing them to "work any harder".
It will be funny if keyboards start having warranty warnings like instead of 1 year warranty, warrantee it for the first 2 million keystrokes or one year, whichever comes first. After all why not, car manufacturers do it by mileage or time.
Everyone tries to do as much as they can get away with.
And that includes both sides
Capping usage at least in principle, when all the providers try to get you to bundle the services, phone/tv/internet seems a most sleazy idea.
Next thing you know they will start filtering content....
Yikes
| |
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| reply to netcool
said by netcool :
.........As funchords noted I think the cap is somewhat lowball as well; the invisi-caps seemed to be a bit higher.
When people look at the cap I think they should be asking themselves if it's reasonable. At this time I do believe 250gb is reasonable. It would be a good idea for Comcast to state how they plan on keeping the cap fair (i.e re-evaluating it every so often etc.)
Of course it's a lowball/lowest common denominator. by having to state a national number they had to determine the highest number that the least capable/most crowded node in the country could sustain. Most can probably handle more.
and that number/capablity may even be higher then the current stated cap, they may have left some cushion in the number (they won't get compliants if they later raise it, but having to drop an overinflated cap would be a PR diaster)
The way I see the cap is they may not cut you off/warn you just for exceeding it IF your activity does not impact others, but once you pass 250GB, you are in the danger zone.
That is not just your activity, but if your node/CMTS gets stressed by the aggregete useage, THEN they'll start working their way down the 250+ list.
I'm sure the system is still evolving, even having tested it in a few markets they'll still need to evaluate the results of a nationwide roll out.
It will take a few months to weed out those who intend to push the limit.
I don't think the system is greatly changed from what existed before, it's just a little more transparent/public.
We are still talking about a very, very small percentage of subs being effected/capped, but maybe a very large group of subs whose service will improve/be more consistant/be less likely to be effected by an overloaded system. | |
| reply to netcool
said by netcool :said by funchords:Comcast first started this across-the-board threatening and disconnection of higher-bandwidth users 5 years ago, based on their TOS provision against someone using the service in a way that negatively impacted it. The trouble is, they were using the bandwidth amount without ever showing a negative impact -- they simply rationalized that someone who was using over (some undisclosed number) that they simply must be causing an undue impact. That undisclosed number became known as the "invisible cap" because it was a "defacto" cap and remained absolutely undisclosed except through making the same hard-to-read inference to that "impact" part of Comcast's TOS. That sounds like you are making a few leaps of faith there. Abuse is handled on a case by case basis from what I've seen. If many users start complaining about slow speeds off a certain node it is passed over to abuse for investigation. Or conversely if the market engineers notice that a node with only 50 subscribers is routinely running hot on their capacity reports it is passed over to abuse. I don't think the top .01% are kicked off every year for abuse or even get "the call." If that were the case I would imagine we would see quite a few more posts here complaining about it. It seems to me that it would be a waste of resources to investigate every sub who went over 250gb UNLESS they were actually causing an issue. I don't agree at all. I got the call (and part of the reason was their fault-service didn't work properly) and after thorough investigation, I was told that no one complained, and that I was NOT negatively impacting my node. As one guy from "Quality Assurance" (what a misleading name) told me, "you made the list". He said it was his job to call, not allow me to speak to anyone else, and not to give his name. If I didn't like it, then I should sue them. He said some other things too. I had Comcast triple play, switched it all, and what happened to me got others to switch just for the point of how they acted. I will never go back to them, even though I am back to 3 MBPS DSL. I don't care.
You should do internet searches and just see how many people get the call.
Comcast wouldn't have so many people complaining to the FCC, FTC, etc, if they were honest about things, so remember that also. It isn't up to others either to judge how much is ok and how much isn't. Unfortunately, the ignorant point of view is that "If you use xyz amount you are doing illegal things". And yes, Comcast took this view with me, until I informed him that I showed EVERYTHING I was downloading to the tech when he came out to fix my service problem. After all, we had to test it to make sure he fixed it. Funny how he also did not take me up on my offer to have them come over any time they wanted without warning, and I'd give them full access to the computer to see what was done. They did a lot of ASSUMING, and you know what they say about that. | |
| reply to pianotech
said by pianotech:When you think about it, every other commodity or utility we buy is metered. Water, natural gas, oil, gasoline, electricity, cell phone minutes.... Why do we expect bandwidth to be different? oh yeah, that's a good comparison. I just love it when the phone, water, gas, electricity decide to shut off and ban me for a year for using too much of it any given month. | |
|
