dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

3 edits
reply to K Patterson

Re: Comcast 250GB limit

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


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

4 edits

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


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

3 edits

1 recommendation

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