dslreports logo
Comcast Offers Details On New Cap in Nashville
Confirmed August 1 Start, $10 For Additional 50 GB

Earlier this year Comcast announced that the cable operator would be eliminating their 250GB monthly cap for all users -- instead announcing a number of new cap and overage options. At the time, Comcast stated that users in some trial markets would see their monthly caps raised to 300 GB a month -- but users would also potentially be seeing overages ($10 for 50 GB was cited as an example).

Click for full size
Earlier this month we exclusively reported that Nashville was going to be one of the test markets for the new caps, users in Nashville getting an e-mail informing them that the decision to start charging overages was an "evolution" in Comcast services.

According to a recent Q&A posted to the Comcast website, starting August 1 users in Nashville have a 300 GB monthly cap and pay $10 for each additional 50 GB. From the Comcast FAQ:
quote:
When you exceed 300 GB of data usage, you will receive an email, an in-browser notice (see below) and an additional 50 GB will be automatically allocated. In order for customers to get accustomed to the new data usage management plan, we will be implementing a courtesy period. That means you will not be billed for the first three times you exceed the monthly 300 GB allowance during a 12-month period. Should you exceed the monthly allowance after the courtesy period expires, you will automatically be charged $10 each time we need to provide you with an additional 50 GB of data for usage beyond your plan.
There's no word from Comcast on any additional markets yet.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
flycuban
join:2005-04-25
Homestead, FL

flycuban

Member

Why?

And they are doing this why??

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

1 recommendation

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: Why?

It's what customers want, of course.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

It's what SOME* customers want the other 95%++ won't be effected.

*They tried a soft cap and warnings and cutting people off and time after time heard "I'd pay more for a higher tier" so they offered business class, but some continued to skirt along the edge as long as they could get away with it.
AND here it is
"Use more, pay more!"

So easy a caveman(data hog) can understand it.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Why?

Right.... so where is the price cut for those that dont use nearly that much as 300GB?

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 edit

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by Skippy25:

Right.... so where is the price cut for those that dont use nearly that much as 300GB?

Could happen any day.
Say a flat $0.25 per GB would be great for me.
However changing to postpaid billing for everyone has a lot of problem so ComCast has choosen to use their existing 250GB as a base tier. and then they threw in a bonus of 50GB, so anyone not exceeding the limit before, will never exceed it...unless their behavior changes.

See this is about behavior modification.
Those that over use will have to pay and that will make most (of thos VERY few) either accept it as part of the cost of their vital "work"* usage, trim usage to match the cap, or find another provider.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Why?

said by tshirt:

said by Skippy25:

Right.... so where is the price cut for those that dont use nearly that much as 300GB?

Could happen any day.
Say a flat $0.25 per GB would be great for me.

Never will happen. Many customers may never use 20 GB a month. Comcast isn't going to give them internet for $5 a month.

Besides even on utilities, with my gas company you will pay $7 month even if you use no gas what so ever. The amount you pay for unit of usage is added to that $7. Water company is the same. The lowest you bill will be if you have service $30 a month. Even if you went a way for a month and didn't use a drop of water. The difference between the water and gas is with the water you get to use X amount of gallons( or whatever unit they use ) before they start charging you more than the $30 and I said with the gas you get charged immediately.

So if Comcast did ever go to a pay per bit usage there still would some sort of base charge. Also the per bit charges would probably be higher on those that used less. But I doubt it happens because people like certainty in the bills. right now you know you internet bills will be X amount. You can plan for that. Not one month it this amount because you used 27 GB and next month it's that amount because you used 35 GB.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

I totally agree. see below
Skippy is the one with limited reasoning skills or perhaps it's greedy self interest AGAIN.

bige1977
@comcast.net

bige1977 to 88615298

Anon

to 88615298
My local water utility has an even worse policy. There is a minimum monthly fee assessed against the property even if the water service has been turned off. It is simply a hidden property tax.

JigglyWiggly
join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

JigglyWiggly to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
so rediculous
i love the old system
they never enforced it in my area

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by JigglyWiggly:

so rediculous
i love the old system
they never enforced it in my area

And YOUR heavy usage is one of the reasons for the change.
Your neighbors are either very happy or they are approaching with burning torches.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

Re: Why?

I would be willing to bet his neighbors never noticed a single slow down or "saturation" on the entire node.

His heavy usage had absolutely nothing to do with it. It is their foresight into the future and trying to limit competing video that caused it. You shilling otherwise is just silliness.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 recommendation

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by Skippy25:

You shilling otherwise is just silliness.

Whoops! Wrong again Skippy
Shill would imply I work for or otherwise receive compensation for promoting their products.
In fact, I'm just an enthusiastic customer, an admirer of sound business and network management, and a person that can think beyond the "free", "where's mine?" and "someone else should pay" petty greediness you advocate repeatedly.
Stand up, grow a pair and pay for costs you incur and Mom might let you out of the basement.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Re: Why?

omg, it's Ralph J. Roberts himself! Amazing that he still gets around on the intertubes, look at him go...
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
First, I would recommend you look up what a shill is before you continue to attempt to say you are not one. »www.dictionary.com should help you.

Second, so you are against the petty greediness of "someone else should pay" yet you are OK with it when it benefits you?

I guess by your statement then you would agree they should be regulated like a utility with a connection fee and all GB's billed at an appropriate amount determined by experts and not boardrooms. I mean that is probably the most accurate way to make sure none of us are riding the backs of others, not even the executives right? While we are at it, lets not allow any ISP to install/upgrade any lines without forcing that customer to pay the full price of such? Allowing that cost to be absorbed by many would only encourage leeching.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 edit

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by Skippy25:

First, I would recommend you look up what a shill is before you continue to attempt to say you are not one. »www.dictionary.com should help you.

Since your URL failed to actually link to the word shill, I must assume you also failed to read and understand the definition, so I offer 2 sources
»dictionary.reference.com ··· &ld=1087
1.
a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
»en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill
shill (plural shills)
1.A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial. [quotations ¥]

2.An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling game. [quotations ¥]

I have no interest or benefit in you being a comcast customer or not.
said by Skippy25:

Second, so you are against the petty greediness of "someone else should pay" yet you are OK with it when it benefits you?

I was of course answering YOUR suggestion that the proposed tiers would be OVERCHARGING normal users.
At the $0.25 per GB flat rate at 250GB user would pay $62.50 the highest regular stand alone HSI price I have ever seen listed, but it seemed a reasonable comparison, The reason it would work well for me and millions of others is the most I have ever used is 159GB, so MY bill would only be $39.75.
However, that would REQUIRE those in overage catagories to pay many thousands of times the proposed fees to reach the same total revenue, a highly unlikely event.
The current base works for me and apparently is one model ComCast is choosing to explore.
said by Skippy25:

I guess by your statement then you would agree they should be regulated like a utility with a connection fee and all GB's billed at an appropriate amount determined by experts and not boardrooms. I mean that is probably the most accurate way to make sure none of us are riding the backs of others, not even the executives right? While we are at it, lets not allow any ISP to install/upgrade any lines without forcing that customer to pay the full price of such? Allowing that cost to be absorbed by many would only encourage leeching.

The once again YOU guessed WRONG.
While at some point down the road (years away IMHO) broadband may reach utility status, it currently is a service provided by MOSTLY privately own companies over privately owned networks and in the case of cable Privately(via a public offer stock and corp. bonds) financed and built.
ComCast in particaular can set their price for HSI at what they believe is the market price. Consumers have the choice to purchase or not as they see fit. At times to entice new customers to join they offer promotional pricing, as they see fit.
So far the blend of regulated (Telephone, Secuirty, etc) negotiated agreements (Most cable started and is still under the control of a negotiated franchise agreement which often set a price for "lifeline service plus fees and services to be provide for public benefit * ) and the unregulated HSI products have returned a profit in the historical industry average of approx. 10%, fairly modest for a publicly held company.

* I would suggest if you want influance over the franchise terms at next renewal you become involved in the PUBLIC reneogoietion process. then you would get a chance to PROVE that their broadband services should be a REGULATED utility.
Expand your moderator at work
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to JigglyWiggly

Member

to JigglyWiggly
said by JigglyWiggly:

so rediculous
i love the old system
they never enforced it in my area

And unless you live in Nashville they still aren't enforcing it. Even there you have 3 months in which you can go over.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
I switched to business class. Only thing I miss is the occasional speed upgrades.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to flycuban

Member

to flycuban
said by flycuban:

And they are doing this why??

you rather be cut off after 250 GB? because that was the old way they did things.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to flycuban

Premium Member

to flycuban
said by flycuban:

And they are doing this why??

The "it's what the customers what" official answer aside, it is so cord-cutters like people on this site don't get terribly happy with services like Netflix, Crackle and Amazon Video.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Re: Why?

said by pnh102:

it is so cord-cutters like people on this site don't get terribly happy with services like Netflix, Crackle and Amazon Video.

A retired friend of mine is a cord cutter in love with his Roku. His usage totals typically run between 150GB and 200GB/mo. The highest month (when his Roku was new and the novelty hadn't worn off) was 230GB. He has all day to watch TV and I'd hazard a guess that his hourly streaming totals are way above the average, even for a cord cutter.

I don't like caps any more than the next guy but the reality of the situation is that very few users will run into them. So long as these users are such a small minority you can expect zero sympathy from John Q. Public, never mind any of the regulatory agencies in a position to actually do something about caps and network neutrality.
Gres7
join:2001-03-05
Brooklyn, NY

Gres7

Member

Re: Why?

>>reality of the situation is that very few users will run into them.

200GB? C'mon that is just 1 (one) retired friend.
How much would household of 4-5 use?

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 recommendation

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by Gres7:

200GB? C'mon that is just 1 (one) retired friend.
How much would household of 4-5 use?

Hopefully at least some of them have jobs/school/a life beyond the TV.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

Crookshanks to Gres7

Member

to Gres7
His household has three people in it but that's besides the point. Explain to me why a household of four or five should pay the same as a household of one? Frankly I've never understood this argument as it relates to caps.

Each megabit that you require at a given time requires a certain infrastructure investment on the part of your ISP. Likewise, each kilowatt of electrical demand (not kilowatt-hour, there is a difference) requires a certain infrastructure investment on the part of your power utility. The power grid could not handle every house in your neighborhood simultaneously attempting to draw 200 amps. It's absurd to expect any ISP to build out residential infrastructure at a 1 to 1 contention ratio.

Imposing byte caps is not the best way for ISPs to deal with bandwidth demand but it is the easiest for consumers to understand. 95% percentile billing would make more sense but you'd have a very hard time trying to explain it to the non-geeks.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by Crookshanks:

His household has three people in it but that's besides the point. Explain to me why a household of four or five should pay the same as a household of one? Frankly I've never understood this argument as it relates to caps.

Each megabit that you require at a given time requires a certain infrastructure investment on the part of your ISP. Likewise, each kilowatt of electrical demand (not kilowatt-hour, there is a difference) requires a certain infrastructure investment on the part of your power utility. The power grid could not handle every house in your neighborhood simultaneously attempting to draw 200 amps. It's absurd to expect any ISP to build out residential infrastructure at a 1 to 1 contention ratio.

Imposing byte caps is not the best way for ISPs to deal with bandwidth demand but it is the easiest for consumers to understand. 95% percentile billing would make more sense but you'd have a very hard time trying to explain it to the non-geeks.

Since you mention the electric comapny, the easiest billing method to understand would be like how the electric company bills. You pay for what you use.
Then people who use a little would only pay a little. And people who use alot would pay more.

if anything, having a cap is a detriment to the people who use very little bandwidth. Since a person who only uses 50GB a month will be paying the same amount as a person who uses 250GB. (Of course assuming they are on the same speed tier)
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Re: Why?

said by aaronwt:

Since you mention the electric comapny, the easiest billing method to understand would be like how the electric company bills. You pay for what you use.
Then people who use a little would only pay a little. And people who use alot would pay more.

There is still a base monthly charge to cover the costs of the connection to the grid, meter maintenance, etc. Where I used to live that charge was $16/mo and accounted for more than a third of my total electric bill.
said by aaronwt:

if anything, having a cap is a detriment to the people who use very little bandwidth. Since a person who only uses 50GB a month will be paying the same amount as a person who uses 250GB. (Of course assuming they are on the same speed tier)

I agree, caps are stupid. That's why I said percentile billing makes more sense. Someone who uses 256kbit/s 24/7 places less of a burden on the network than someone who uses 7.5mbit/s for 24 hours. Both consume the same number of bytes but the latter requires a greater infrastructure investment on the part of the ISP.

The major advantage to caps is they are easier for the end user to understand. They are also set high enough that they impact a very small percentage of the total customer base.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Re: Why?

5% max allowable utilization is not "high" by any definition. And your percentile billing doesn't make sense unless costs are actually tied to expenses. I.e. a "cap" on Comcast's profit.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Re: Why?

said by Wilsdom:

5% max allowable utilization is not "high" by any definition.

It's not "max allowable", you pay for what you use and get to burst above that 5% of the time. 36 hours out of the month you can use as much bandwidth as you want (or as your ISP can deliver) without being billed for it. Peering arrangements and large corporate connections have been billed this way for decades without issue.
said by Wilsdom:

I.e. a "cap" on Comcast's profit.

Good luck with that.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks
If there are truly so few users "demanding" so much bandwidth throughout their network, then there is absolutely no need for the cap as it does nothing to address the supposed bandwidth crunch.

Caps are not about those that use more pay more. If that was the case they would have a set connection fee, deliver all the speed they can to every user (no need for tiers) and then charge per GB to begin with so that those that dont use any or very little pay much less and those that use a lot more pay much more.

It cost a cable company virtually nothing to provide you 30MB service compared to a 5MB service. The only issue may be node saturation, which is less likely if you have everyone getting what they need and getting off as quick as possible. Those that are going to then argue that doing so will cause too many full time streamers from saturating the node need to see paragraph one (which is one of your own arguments).
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Re: Why?

said by Skippy25:

If there are truly so few users "demanding" so much bandwidth throughout their network, then there is absolutely no need for the cap as it does nothing to address the supposed bandwidth crunch.

Sure it does, it's just a bludgeon instead of a scalpel. Burstable billing would do a better job, but as I've repeatedly said, good luck explaining it to John Q. Public. Billing off-peak consumption separately (or just making it unlimited) would help some and would be easy enough to explain to the average user. I'd hazard a guess that you'll see this sooner or later, probably in wireless before wireline.
said by Skippy25:

It cost a cable company virtually nothing to provide you 30MB service compared to a 5MB service.

What is your basis for this conclusion?
said by Skippy25:

The only issue may be node saturation

You mean to say that actual constraints on deliverable bandwidth exist?!? Say it isn't so!
said by Skippy25:

Those that are going to then argue that doing so will cause too many full time streamers from saturating the node need to see paragraph one (which is one of your own arguments).

I'm not arguing anything other than each additional bit of bandwidth demand (not total byte consumption, they are not the same) requires further investment on the part of the ISP. As you push your average bitrate higher the ISP has to invest more into its infrastructure to ensure that the contention ratio remains low enough for every customer to enjoy an acceptable level of service.

•••••
ssavoy
Premium Member
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA

ssavoy to Gres7

Premium Member

to Gres7
The most our family of 5 used was 177GB in one month - and a majority of that were large game downloads and updates. We average about 60-80GB/month and there's always someone online or something streaming.

ds5v50
join:2003-01-22
Fremont, OH

ds5v50 to Gres7

Member

to Gres7
said by Gres7:

>>reality of the situation is that very few users will run into them.

200GB? C'mon that is just 1 (one) retired friend.
How much would household of 4-5 use?

I've got multiple users/PC's in the house including Server for my local weather. and I am sitting at ..
Current:17.9 Kbit/s / 1.0 Mbit/s (Out / In)
Today:30.6 MB / 448.1 MB (Out / In)
Month:8.0 GB / 101.8 GB (Out / In)
 
 

this figure will reset tomorrow.

•••

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

said by pnh102:

it is so cord-cutters like people on this site don't get terribly happy with services like Netflix, Crackle and Amazon Video.

A retired friend of mine is a cord cutter in love with his Roku. His usage totals typically run between 150GB and 200GB/mo. The highest month (when his Roku was new and the novelty hadn't worn off) was 230GB. He has all day to watch TV and I'd hazard a guess that his hourly streaming totals are way above the average, even for a cord cutter.

I don't like caps any more than the next guy but the reality of the situation is that very few users will run into them. So long as these users are such a small minority you can expect zero sympathy from John Q. Public, never mind any of the regulatory agencies in a position to actually do something about caps and network neutrality.

Roku is only using lower bitrate streams for their content. Even Netflix 1080P HD content is only around 5Mb/s. Vudu three bar HDX is around 9Mb/s. But Roku doesn't offer VUDU on their devices.

And that is one person. So if you to take those amounts, what happens when you have a family of five, all using bandwidth daily? It can easily exceed those numbers.

Although I easily exceed 300GB just by myself. On just one day this month, when I was backing up some content to online storage, I used around 70GB.

••••••••••••

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

3 recommendations

jmn1207 to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
Caps are simply used as a method to help ensure that nothing innovative can be created that will jeopardize the existing antiquated, consumer-unfriendly distribution method.

Even where a content creator is not also a TV provider, we are seeing increasing moves to paywalls and other artificial restrictions that serve no other purpose but to maintain an overreaching control and to keep consumers from gaining any real leverage like they should in any legitimate free market.

•••
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

said by pnh102:

it is so cord-cutters like people on this site don't get terribly happy with services like Netflix, Crackle and Amazon Video.

I don't like caps any more than the next guy but the reality of the situation is that very few users will run into them.

I'd beg to differ on that, I have a data usage monitoring tool on my HTPC, and I can hit 1TB in a month easily from legally streaming data sources such at Netflix, Amazon, and Crackle. As far as usage goes this year, I think I've between upload and download hit a total of 4TB's for the year.

Matt

•••••••••••••••••••
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to flycuban

Member

to flycuban
said by flycuban:

And they are doing this why??

To monetize the extremely small percentage of their users who consume >300GB/mo. It's a win-win for them; they make more money or the heavy usage customers flee to other providers. (*)

Of course now we'll see at least three different people reply with grossly inflated bandwidth numbers while claiming that they are representative of the "typical" user. To them, the "typical user" watches multiple HD streams simultaneously, downloads a different Linux distribution every day, has VPNs established to their friends and family where they exchange hours of home videos, and stores every byte of their data in the cloud.

plencnerb
Premium Member
join:2000-09-25
53403-1242

1 recommendation

plencnerb

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by Crookshanks:

Of course now we'll see at least three different people reply with grossly inflated bandwidth numbers while claiming that they are representative of the "typical" user. To them, the "typical user" watches multiple HD streams simultaneously, downloads a different Linux distribution every day, has VPNs established to their friends and family where they exchange hours of home videos, and stores every byte of their data in the cloud.

You forgot to add that the updates to their data in the cloud take place every 4 hours

--Brian
NeoandGeo
join:2003-05-10
Harrison, TN

NeoandGeo to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

said by flycuban:

And they are doing this why??

To monetize the extremely small percentage of their users who consume >300GB/mo. It's a win-win for them; they make more money or the heavy usage customers flee to other providers. (*)

Of course now we'll see at least three different people reply with grossly inflated bandwidth numbers while claiming that they are representative of the "typical" user. To them, the "typical user" watches multiple HD streams simultaneously, downloads a different Linux distribution every day, has VPNs established to their friends and family where they exchange hours of home videos, and stores every byte of their data in the cloud.

This is quickly becoming typical family with every single device they own able to do everything you just mentioned. 5 years ago all of this was unheard of for virtually everyone. That coupled with DD becoming the future of gaming with modern games exceeding double digit GB sizes.

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium Member
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
·Consolidated Com..

spewak to flycuban

Premium Member

to flycuban
said by flycuban:

And they are doing this why??

Because it is an "evolution" don't ya know!

StevenB
Premium Member
join:2000-10-27
New York, NY
·Charter

StevenB to flycuban

Premium Member

to flycuban
Their doing this, because they can. It's a 2 part thing.

Most MSOs do this sort of thing because they want you to subscribe to their TV services and other services, provided by them. I remember before the netflix days and other online services like them.. Internet was marketed with the 'unlimited' tag. Once the boom of online tv, music etc.. came into play, MSOs started to enforce caps of all sorts.

Many years ago i can understand that node congestion was an issue, due to the equipment not being easily available due to the tech. But as time progressed and better tech came into the market place, and vendors supplying said equipment at huge mark-downs.. Congestion was a non-issue. Now don't get me wrong, some MSOs and other internet providers, didn't have the money allocation like a Comcast, Time Warner Cable etc..

But as of now in 2012. The 'congestion' boogeyman is simply more than what i described above, or a pure-cash grab. 50gb for 10 bucks is simply absurd.

As for the family of 4-6 comments. Do you really think it's putting a strain on the network in 2012 for the big players? If you do believe this, you fell for the marketing of absurd.

But i see this only being enforced in non-competitive markets. In markets that compete with fios, or any sort of fiber. I do not believe they will think twice about this.. Unless Verizon and the other FTTH companies start doing the same.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Re: Why?

said by StevenB:

Many years ago i can understand that node congestion was an issue, due to the equipment not being easily available due to the tech. But as time progressed and better tech came into the market place, and vendors supplying said equipment at huge mark-downs.. Congestion was a non-issue.

Really? As recently as 14 or 15 months ago I had to bail on TWC because my peak hour (8pm to 1am) speeds weren't enough to stream Netflix. I was paying for "Roadrunner Turbo" 15mbit/s service and was lucky to get T-1 speeds during those hours. I even had a PM dialogue about it with a TWC engineer on this site, who admitted that my node was maxed out during those hours.

3mbit/s DSL from Verizon ultimately turned out to be better even though it only had 20% of the bandwidth on paper. What good is a 15mbit/s connection if you can only achieve that speed at 4am? Perhaps it has value to the late night porn addicts but beyond that it's useless.
said by StevenB:

But as of now in 2012. The 'congestion' boogeyman is simply more than what i described above, or a pure-cash grab. 50gb for 10 bucks is simply absurd.

Billing for bytes is absurd period. The billing should really be for the utilized bandwidth rate in bit/s but that would be substantially harder to explain to the average end user, hence billing by the byte.

StevenB
Premium Member
join:2000-10-27
New York, NY
·Charter

StevenB

Premium Member

Re: Why?

said by Crookshanks:

said by StevenB:

Many years ago i can understand that node congestion was an issue, due to the equipment not being easily available due to the tech. But as time progressed and better tech came into the market place, and vendors supplying said equipment at huge mark-downs.. Congestion was a non-issue.

Really? As recently as 14 or 15 months ago I had to bail on TWC because my peak hour (8pm to 1am) speeds weren't enough to stream Netflix. I was paying for "Roadrunner Turbo" 15mbit/s service and was lucky to get T-1 speeds during those hours. I even had a PM dialogue about it with a TWC engineer on this site, who admitted that my node was maxed out during those hours.

3mbit/s DSL from Verizon ultimately turned out to be better even though it only had 20% of the bandwidth on paper. What good is a 15mbit/s connection if you can only achieve that speed at 4am? Perhaps it has value to the late night porn addicts but beyond that it's useless.
said by StevenB:

But as of now in 2012. The 'congestion' boogeyman is simply more than what i described above, or a pure-cash grab. 50gb for 10 bucks is simply absurd.

Billing for bytes is absurd period. The billing should really be for the utilized bandwidth rate in bit/s but that would be substantially harder to explain to the average end user, hence billing by the byte.

I had the same issues, you know why? Time Warner Cable was the last to upgrade their plants. They packed on as many users onto docsis 1.x nodes, which doesn't have the capacity nor enough channels to support many users.

Now with the implementation of docsis 3.0 - you do not have to worry about 'congestion' and other forms of tom foolery. As the nodes have enough capacity and load balancing (if 1 channel is full, it switches to another channel) and channel bonding to get rid of the evil 'slow down' monster.

compuguybna
join:2009-06-17
Nashville, TN

compuguybna to flycuban

Member

to flycuban
UMMMM, EXTRA CASH FLOW?????
said by flycuban:

And they are doing this why??

Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

At this point...

I'd just cancel my service and get whatever else possible.

•••••

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Same way Suddenlink does it...

The transfer amounts are different, but it's the same price for 50 gigs when you go over, and you get the same 3 strikes.

Gee, it's almost like they get together and work out these things in advance... Hmm...
jmas
join:2011-12-09
Hamilton, MI

jmas

Member

LTE

We can only dream of having caps like that going forward with LTE services from Verizon/ATT/etc...

$10 for 50GB seems like a great deal when you compare to verizon

apples to oranges though I guess, although you could compare to HomeFusion... too bad HomeFusion is not meant to and never will compete with cable broadband services.

Contents
Contents
join:2003-04-10
Circle Pines, MN

Contents

Member

I signed up for Comcast Business Class

I pay a couple bucks more a month for the Business class. The only downside is a 3 year contract, but there is no competition in my area so I might as well.

No more worries about caps.

»business.comcast.com/smb ··· et/plans

•••
binkleym
join:2010-05-15
Ashland City, TN

binkleym

Member

It has to be "evolution"...

... because it certainly isn't intelligent design.

Over the next year or two Google Fiber will show people what's really possible. And incumbent ISP's will either adapt quickly or face a storm of public criticism and make it easier for politicians to start holding their feet to the fire.

I hope.

••••••••
psiu
join:2004-01-20
Farmington, MI

psiu

Member

not bad I guess

In the existing realm of pricing, Comcast's offering is actually on the relatively tame side of things.

Will be interesting to see if Google makes anything change...with their limited buildout thus far I don't see it happening.
Kommie2 (banned)
join:2003-05-13
united state

Kommie2 (banned)

Member

Goverment should step in.

Capping bandwidth is like limiting the amount of transportation on the roads. It should not be legal. Bandwidth is infrastructure now.

•••••••••••••••
ke4pym
Premium Member
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC

ke4pym

Premium Member

NBC

Comcast should have never been allowed to buy them.

No transport carrier should be permitted to own a content company.

barrygee66
@cavtel.net

barrygee66

Anon

Re: NBC

thats why i have fios 150 mbps i have been download 1tb of vids and streaming olympics and pandora all day day long screw comcast

Alcohol
Premium Member
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI

Alcohol to ke4pym

Premium Member

to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:

Comcast should have never been allowed to buy them.

No transport carrier should be permitted to own a content company.

They were allowed to buy a huge stake in them.

SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Atlanta, GA

SysOp

Member

Multiple modems?

If each modem gets 300gb, why not just add extra modems to the account?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Multiple modems?

True. If you can add a second modem for $50/month, that's slightly better than paying for 300GB of overage fees (300/50*$10=$60/month; is my math right?). However, you would need to use the entire 600GB to realize any savings. If you only need 450GB, it would be better to pay for just what you need. If Comcast offers faster tiers with a larger cap, that might be more cost effective plus it's faster.
TheGuvnor9
join:2006-06-23
Beverly Hills, CA

TheGuvnor9

Member

Sheeesh folks, go for a walk

Maybe all this cap stuff won't matter if you go exercise. A gym membership can be cheaper than paying for cable/internet.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Re: Sheeesh folks, go for a walk

You go to gym to walk? Talk about a waste of money
tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA

tpkatl

Member

This has nothing to with bandwidth. It has to do with movies

Remember this popped up a couple of weeks ago when Comcast decided that their Xfinity Movies used a different part of the coax cable than Netflix's movies (ha ha chuckle chuckle).

And your usage will be socked for watching a Netflix move but an Xfinity movie didn't count against your cap.

That's what this is about. Comcast is trying to make life more difficult for people who want to get entertainment services from their competitors. It's that simple.

And since Comcast bought Congress, there is no meaningful enforcement of Net neutrality, so they are home free.

••••••
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Metering Arguments Must Be Rational

When arguing the necessity of metering by referencing other metered utilities, it's apples and oranges unless the utility lacks significant variable usage costs. Examples of utilities with significant variable usage costs are water, sewer, gas and electric.

Please note the significance of the term significant. We are all aware that network providers have peering relationships and backbone connection costs with a variable component. However, according to this article containing worst-case scenarios, it still only costs pennies per GB (including profit). It is therefore impossible to believe that the current metered costs of a such a ubiquitous service are set by typical market forces.

»blogs.howstuffworks.com/ ··· cenario/

We must also consider that network providers enjoy technological advances that magnify the efficiency of their networks beyond the imagination of other utilities. Ponder how cheap electricity would be if in five years twice as much power was possible from the same unit of coal and in 10 years, four times as much? How cheap would gasoline be if cars went from 30MPG to 60MPG and then 120MPG?

I'd argue that this kind of efficiency improvement would probably start a world war as it would completely destabilize OPEC and Exxon wouldn't be worth the paper used to print its stock certificates.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

My main issues

A) Cap in 2008 250, cap in 2012 300 GB only 20% increase in 4 years. Meanwhile I can assure you the cost of providing 250 GB of bandwidth over the last 4 yeas in probably at least 80% less in that time. Comcast could have increased it to 500 GB. You probably quell 75% of the bitching. If not more.

B) Overage are 20 cents per GB. If the overages are there because excessive bandwidth then charge what the bandwidth cost. Hell in throw in 20% profit. Should be closer to 10 cents per GB max.

C) Of course it only averages 20 cents per GB if you use the entire 50 extra GB. If you use only 10 GB you're paying $1 per GB. Overages should be on a per GB basis or no more than per 10 GB basis not per 50 GB.

So 500 GB cap and $1 per 10 GB overage. 95% of whining should stop. All that being said this is a beta test and Comcast could change things when the test is done which sounds like it will take a year.

delusion ftl
@comcast.net

delusion ftl

Anon

Re: My main issues

Those ideas are not too bad. I also think they should turn the meter off from 1am to 8am for users who do legitimate large online backups at night and do not put any burden on the network during peak times.

And they should allow rollover data, so if you use 100GB one month but then have heavy transfers come up you'll have 500 GB available for the next month.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Customers screwed by rounding error!

When I started working for a Bell Operating Company in the early 1980's, the sales team I was assigned to sold allot of measured WATS lines by showing the customer that they would save 20% by installing WATS lines. The reason, AT&T offered 6 Second rounding rather than 1 Minute rounding like the competition. If the rate is $0.18 per minute the cost for an overage of 3 seconds with one minute rounding is $0.18 in the case of 6 second rounding the cost for an overage of 3 seconds is $01.8.

In the case of Comcast, the price of $10.00 for 50 GB puts a customer in a position to pay $10.00 if they go over the 300 GB cap by a couple of bytes. Comcast would be more equitable if they charged $0.10 per 500 MB or $0.1 per 50 MB. They just don't want the customer to realize that they are being screwed because of rounding error.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678

Member

Re: Customers screwed by rounding error!

what is the no change thresh hold? at least a few meg? 1gb? or 0?

Easy to fix the meter to just go over and to count ARP traffic

SalemSwift
@comcast.net

SalemSwift

Anon

Comcrap

Geez, I barely dodged a bullet for the time being. I'm in Memphis. Between us and Nashville lies Chattanooga with their Comcast crushing EPB service. I'm surprised they'd be so bold near a celebrity town known for nation leading broadband.

Nashville consumers, give'em hell.
dantheman706
join:2012-07-23
White Pine, TN

dantheman706

Member

comcast is so nice

Wow, comcast is so nice.

They give you 3 chances before they bill you. Wonder what Charter's new ceo has in store for us over overages... he's already thought it was such a great idea to bill us for modem rentals regardless if we want to rent a modem from charter or not

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

And what happens when someone is told that

they hit the limit yet the person is the only one who lives in the house and claims they did not use 1/100th of the cap?

Is Comcast even sure that their cap-counter is 100% or near 100% accurate?

I doubt it...and I am sure they are quite glad that it isn't anywhere near 100% accurate because...who will stop them if they add a few GB's to someones account to get them over the limit?

Oh no, they must pay a $10 fine for collecting those tens of millions of dollars from customers!

chong673
join:2001-11-18
Jonesboro, GA

chong673

Member

Oh well

300GB is enough for me for 1 person!

Think of it as downloading thirty 1080p movies which I cant watch that much in a month.

That mean 10mb per day, easy # to remember.
dubenezic
join:2004-05-06
Elizabeth, NJ

dubenezic

Member

Comcast is Evil

This will just push people to Fios where there is no data cap if they can get it.

These data caps are a scheme to nickel and dime customers. If less than 5% of customers use more than 250GB or now 300GB then there is no reason for the cap.
page: 1 · 2 · next