dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11435
share rss forum feed

MADx

join:2005-05-25
Richmond, IN

1 edit

Comcast 250GB limit

This is a good article talking about the consequences and repercussions of Comcast 250GB limit.

»www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2···K0000532



CleanGene
Premium,MVM
join:2008-04-09
Manassas, VA

It's a silly article. I think my favorite part is this one:

The second line of attack against Comcast's attempt to destroy the burgeoning downloadable content market must come from other companies, particularly companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple that are so large, powerful, and influential. Basically any company that provides video/audio content that requires significant bandwidth must step forward and sue the pants off of Comcast (and other ISPs) over this.

I'm no legal expert...
No kidding - not a legal expert, huh?

K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to MADx

Actually, it's a lousy article.

Nowhere in the article or in the comments does anyone display any knowledge of the truth.

Comcast did NOT institute the cap. It was ordered by a Florida court that also fined them $150,000 for not having a publically stated cap. Comcast did set the level, and they can change it.

How many hundreds of posts have been made on this forum about Comcast's unstated cap and secret policies? Well, y'all got your wish.



sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

3 edits

said by K Patterson:

Actually, it's a lousy article.

Nowhere in the article or in the comments does anyone display any knowledge of the truth.

Comcast did NOT institute the cap. It was ordered by a Florida court that also fined them $150,000 for not having a publically stated cap. Comcast did set the level, and they can change it.

How many hundreds of posts have been made on this forum about Comcast's unstated cap and secret policies? Well, y'all got your wish.
Comcast DID institute the cap, except they refused to disclose it. That is why they were fined, for disconnecting people over arbitrary limits not disclosed in the contract.

"This is the same system we have in place today," Comcast wrote in an amendment to its acceptable use policy. "The only difference is that we will now provide a limit by which a customer may be contacted."

The article is excellent, it points clearly in my opinion to the fact that the monopoly is trying to use its Internet Service Provider division to hamper customers' usage of competing video on demand services.

--
Treason is a matter of dates


46778131
T-Bills Are Your Friend

join:2008-09-09
Newark, DE
kudos:1
reply to MADx

Crap article for sure.



HR

@comcast.net
reply to MADx

Video On Demand is only one small piece of the pie. Comcast knows the power that it has, and right now its trying to control as much of its network as it possibly can.

In another 5+ years....Video on Demand in HD could be the NORM, forget Cable TV. New shows could premiere and be streamed to you online for a fee, or wait for the free version, with commercials, to debut online. Video Conferencing in high quality could radically change the way Americans work, saving us billions of barrels of oil a year.

Newspapers are already crumbling to online as-it-happens news (and have been for the past 10 years)....and so it goes.

Comcast is trying to set some limits now, becuase later it wont have the ability to. And they have been, for years, only now their "cap" is at least on the table.



wenter99
Alpha Male
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Albuquerque, NM

4 edits
reply to sturmvogel

said by sturmvogel:

The article is excellent, it points clearly in my opinion to the fact that the monopoly...
Nah, I think it's a pretty shitty article too. Nothing original in it. In fact, there's nothing in it (pro or con) that hasn't been discussed here repeatedly during at least the last couple of months.

Anything significant in the world of broadband or ISPs comes through BBR first.

Terry
--
"Sometimes all you can do is just hunker down and take it, like a jackass caught out in a hail storm". LBJ


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by wenter99:

said by sturmvogel:

The article is excellent, it points clearly in my opinion to the fact that the monopoly...
Nah, I think it's a pretty shitty article too. Nothing original in it. In fact, there's nothing in it (pro or con) that hasn't been discussed here repeatedly during at least the last couple of months.

Anything significant in the world of broadband or ISPs comes through BBR first.

Terry
The fact that there is nothing new does not make the article shitty. As more and more people are affected by the bad policies of the provider and more media exposure it gets regarding these policies, the pressure for the government to take action will increase.

So the more discussion, the better. The article states clear trends that I agree with the author about.
--
Treason is a matter of dates


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to HR

said by HR :

Video On Demand is only one small piece of the pie. Comcast knows the power that it has, and right now its trying to control as much of its network as it possibly can.
It's amazing that people continue to make such far-reaching claims about a policy that only affects 0.01% of their users.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?


wenter99
Alpha Male
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Albuquerque, NM

3 edits

1 recommendation

reply to sturmvogel

said by sturmvogel:

...As more and more people are affected by the bad policies of the provider and more media exposure it gets regarding these policies, the pressure for the government to take action will increase...
Government my ass! If you think you've been wronged by a company or individual, you have every right in this Country to either file charges against them if it's criminal, or file a civil suit if it's otherwise. That's as far as the government should be involved in any issue such as this, government courts. Let a jury of your peers decide who's right and wrong.

I have lived long enough to have seen government regulation at work, en masse. It gets thick and messy! Beginning about the mid-seventies government regulation of a number of industries had finally outlived its usefullness. Airlines, trucking and transportation, wireline, interstate commerce, railroad and much more were finally starting to be de-regulated after decades of being under government control. The weak were wiped out and the strong survived. That's how it should work.

The U.S. economy is based upon a free enterprise system, and the less the government interferes with it, the better! If you don't like the way company ABC is treating you, then start doing business with company XYZ, and STFU

Terry.

ADDED:

And another thing. You keep complaining about the "local government" in your area and its franchise agreements with cable providers and how it has put you at such a disadvantage because your choice of cable providers is limited. Now, on the other hand you're squalling that a bigger government needs to step in and regulate the industry.

You are inconsistant and contradicting yourself big time. I fear that you may actually be hurting your own cause, what ever it may turn out to be...

--
"Sometimes all you can do is just hunker down and take it, like a jackass caught out in a hail storm". LBJ


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

2 edits

said by wenter99:

said by sturmvogel:

...As more and more people are affected by the bad policies of the provider and more media exposure it gets regarding these policies, the pressure for the government to take action will increase...
Government my ass! If you think you've been wronged by a company or individual, you have every right in this Country to either file charges against them if it's criminal, or file a civil suit if it's otherwise. That's as far as the government should be involved in any issue such as this, government courts. Let a jury of your peers decide who's right and wrong.

I have lived long enough to have seen government regulation at work, en masse. It gets thick and messy! Beginning about the mid-seventies government regulation of a number of industries had finally outlived its usefullness. Airlines, trucking and transportation, wireline, interstate commerce, railroad and much more were finally starting to be de-regulated after decades of being under government control. The weak were wiped out and the strong survived. That's how it should work.

The U.S. economy is based upon a free enterprise system, and the less the government interferes with it, the better! If you don't like the way company ABC is treating you, then start doing business with company XYZ, and STFU

Terry.

ADDED:

And another thing. You keep complaining about the "local government" in your area and its franchise agreements with cable providers and how it has put you at such a disadvantage because your choice of cable providers is limited. Now, on the other hand you're squalling that a bigger government needs to step in and regulate the industry.

You are inconsistant and contradicting yourself big time. I fear that you may actually be hurting your own cause, what ever it may turn out to be...

I would appreciate it if you would use civilized language. I do not appreciate acronyms like STFU.

Government must intervene when monopolies behave toward customers in ways that the customers cannot defend themselves against. That is one of the functions of goverment. If you would prefer a society where businesses are unchecked by anything I certainly hope that your vote will be a minority.

The local government granted franchise created the issue in my neighborhood with the lack of providers. I hope that a federal government trust busting lawsuit will split the provider into smaller units that will be more customer oriented and more open minded.

It worked with the telephone companies before, will eventually work with cable.
--
Treason is a matter of dates


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

said by sturmvogel:

"This is the same system we have in place today," Comcast wrote in an amendment to its acceptable use policy. "The only difference is that we will now provide a limit by which a customer may be contacted."

The article is excellent, it points clearly in my opinion to the fact that the monopoly is trying to use its Internet Service Provider division to hamper customers' usage of competing video on demand services.

i'm not suprised you like the article, as it states an opinion similar to your own.
but consider the idea that ComCast is trying to responsibly manage their current network capacity, not what they may offer in the future, not what you believe/wish they offered now, but what they believe they can reasonably deliver today.
of course by being forced to give 1 national figure for the cap, they had to look at what their least capable nodes can actually provide. and they can't raise the level until EVERY node nationwide is able to provide that higher level of service.
even if the service in a single area is hampered, not by technical restriction, but by local permitting difficulties/costs/demands when attempting to make improvements/investments in that plant.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by tshirt:

said by sturmvogel:

"This is the same system we have in place today," Comcast wrote in an amendment to its acceptable use policy. "The only difference is that we will now provide a limit by which a customer may be contacted."

The article is excellent, it points clearly in my opinion to the fact that the monopoly is trying to use its Internet Service Provider division to hamper customers' usage of competing video on demand services.

i'm not suprised you like the article, as it states an opinion similar to your own.
but consider the idea that ComCast is trying to responsibly manage their current network capacity, not what they may offer in the future, not what you believe/wish they offered now, but what they believe they can reasonably deliver today.
of course by being forced to give 1 national figure for the cap, they had to look at what their least capable nodes can actually provide. and they can't raise the level until EVERY node nationwide is able to provide that higher level of service.
even if the service in a single area is hampered, not by technical restriction, but by local permitting difficulties/costs/demands when attempting to make improvements/investments in that plant.
And if they would have done that from the beginning, they would not have run into trouble, nor would lawsuits be necessary. If the "abuse" rep would have said that I could use 250 GB / month without being a problem, we would not be discussing this today.
--
Treason is a matter of dates


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast
reply to MADx

quote:
To run afoul of these limits, Comcast said, customers would have to do one of the following: send 50 million e-mails; download 62,500 songs; download 125 standard-definition movies; or upload 25,000 high-resolution digital photos.
. . . or download 2 hours per night of Hi-Def programming with your DirecTV DVR.

2Hrs = 10GB
30 days = 300GB

So, watching ONE movie per night that you download with DirecTV's new VOD service will put you over the cap.
--

Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket?


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by newview:

quote:
To run afoul of these limits, Comcast said, customers would have to do one of the following: send 50 million e-mails; download 62,500 songs; download 125 standard-definition movies; or upload 25,000 high-resolution digital photos.
. . . or download 2 hours per night of Hi-Def programming with your DirecTV DVR.

2Hrs = 10GB
30 days = 300GB

So, watching ONE movie per night that you download with DirecTV's new VOD service will put you over the cap.
Well, since you would use one of Comcast's competitor, you would be an "abuser".
--
Treason is a matter of dates


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast

said by sturmvogel:

Well, since you would use one of Comcast's competitor, you would be an "abuser".
That's always been apparent to me, since they charge me a penalty of $15.00 more a month because I choose to go with DirecTV instead of their crappy cableTV.
--

Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket?


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

said by newview:

. . . or download 2 hours per night of Hi-Def programming with your DirecTV DVR.

2Hrs = 10GB
30 days = 300GB

So, watching ONE movie per night that you download with DirecTV's new VOD service will put you over the cap.
I keep wondering why a satellite video provider can't send THEIR video product, to THEIR customers, over THEIR own system?
Why don't users/pundits complain about their lack of capacity?


sortofageek
Runs from Clowns
Premium,Mod
join:2001-08-19
kudos:21
reply to MADx

Please keep the bandwidth limitations discussion in one thread. This one --> »The Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management Topic
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .