The Invisible Threshold

Economics

Leave the customer with the illusion of "PLENTY OF BANDWIDTH" and stay out of "FEATURE WARS"

As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business whether they can handle the added business or not. Today, everyone thinks they can be a broadband, webhosting, ISP, provider.

Comcast is obviously protecting their assets (Their customer base) yet allowing the customer to think there is no limit, and that friends is riding the fence.

Nothing wrong with it.

said by coastdweller4:

---

... As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business ...

---

I had not thought of that as the reason for not saying what the limit is. But you are probably right about that.

said by coastdweller4:

---

Nothing wrong with it.

---

Until that same customer base ends up with one of the posts from that fence up their "asset".

While this is a classic case of "what the large print giveth, the small print taketh away", it doesn't make it a good business practice. In fact, it shows a rather large disdain for customers, who are treated the same way most monopolies treat any captive audience.

The real reason for this is they are trying to drive off the heavy users so they can bilk granny out of an additional $30+ a month to just get email, surf the soap opera message boards and maybe look a the occasional picture of the grandkids, which may 10-20 megabytes a month. They don't want heavy giga-users and would be real happy if they all went away.

said by coastdweller4:

---

Economics

As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business whether they can handle the added business or not. Today, everyone thinks they can be a broadband, webhosting, ISP, provider.

Comcast is obviously protecting their assets (Their customer base) yet allowing the customer to think there is no limit, and that friends is riding the fence.

Nothing wrong with it.

---

Whether they are protecting their assets or not, they can't just lie to their customers in the name of competition.

If any customers reasonably rely on their representation of unlimited bandwidth and then get disconnected for excercising their "unlimited bandwidth", then Comcast in running afoul of fair trade practices and should be held accountable.

said by micl:

---

..."unlimited bandwidth", then Comcast in running afoul of fair trade practices and should be held accountable. ...

---

They never said "unlimited bandwidth", they said an "unlimited connection". (or something equally vague) The running theory is that the claim is to the fact that you can stay connected as much as you like (unlike dialup).

And if you read the TOS you will see that the connection is most certainly limited. Although there isn't a clear bandwidth limit stated, there are plenty of other kinds of limits. (No servers for example.)

I don't think any legal action is going to work in this case.

said by AthlGrond:

---

They never said "unlimited bandwidth", they said an "unlimited connection". (or something equally vague) The running theory is that the claim is to the fact that you can stay connected as much as you like (unlike dialup).

---

WTF does 'unlimited connection' mean? I would argue that using the term "unlimited" is an accepted term in the marketplace that means "unlimited bandwidth". If unlimited connection means "always on", then I think they would have used that term since that is the accepted terminology that most everyone else uses in the industry.

Splitting hairs is no defense.

[edit: clarity]

said by micl:

---

Splitting hairs is no defense.

---

LOL, tell that to Clinton.

Seriously, legally it is a defense.

Only morally is it a crime.

BTW they no longer use the term. I guess they decided they didn't offer unlimited service anymore.

Touche !!!!...."Unlimited Connection" does not mean "fat pipe" does it? I was duped into thinkin unlimited connection meant "always-on" aka no fuzzy ack tones purring down my telephone line.

E Pluribus Unum

said by coastdweller4:

---

As soon as you state what your limit is, someone will undersell you for the sake of taking your business whether they can handle the added business or not. Today, everyone thinks they can be a broadband, webhosting, ISP, provider.

---

That might be true in areas where competition exists. But Comcast enjoys a monopoly in much of their footprint - in which case, what you call "riding the fence", I'd call "cherry picking".

So coastdweller, how long have you been working for Commcast ?

I eat and eat and eat. I was told unlimited and I continue to eat at the fastest speeds possible. Oh and FIRST POST!!

Not hardly =)

Thing is, most of the "all-you-can-eat" places who tried to bar large eaters, or limit diners LOST.

I remember a near riot at a Howard Johnson's near here about thirty years ago when they stopped serving all the chicken the kids could eat. They called the cops and tried to have the kids ejected.

They ended up having to serve the chicken.

Other places would give you less and less of the main course and more french fries. The french fries went back.....

It never means what it says I did this with a web hosting account through aplus.net. It said unlimited transfer. But when I went to almost 30GB in the first month they terminated my service Its the same with broadband, they say unlimited but if you put "xcessive strain"on their network they will hit you. With my ISP I only get 5GB per month.

said by LC8290:

---

It never means what it says I did this with a web hosting account through aplus.net. It said unlimited transfer. But when I went to almost 30GB in the first month they terminated my service Its the same with broadband, they say unlimited but if you put "xcessive strain"on their network they will hit you. With my ISP I only get 5GB per month.

---

There are DSL providers where unlimited really means unlimited. I'm allowed to host servers (which I do) and transfer as much as I can (I think I'm around 40% bandwidth mostly because of the servers). Of course, a 384/128 connect doesn't give you a whole lot, but I never need to worry about bandwidth cap.

Man he was quick, but I tried. Also I was kicked from RR cable by Time Warner because I refused to pay 89.99 for 40Gig/month upgrage. I use 400gig/month so their offer was useless to me. Did I cry about it? Hell no. I called earthlink and contracted with them 29.95/mon to rehook the cable up. I am on month 3 with them and it runs a little slower but I got 600 more gigs in my back pocket and still going strong. Thank you corporate competition.

said by Anamus:

---

I use 400gig/month so their offer was useless to me. Did I cry about it? Hell no. ... Thank you corporate competition.

---

Exactly. If a particular product or service isn't right for your needs, there is no sense in continuing to pay for it. A cable modem and/or DSL is not a poor man's T-x. It is clearly stated that these products are for casual, residential use and that if you want or need more, you either need something more expensive, or you will have to go with another provider.

that's easy to say when there is another provider. the rest of us have to move before we have that option (*cough* charter sucks *cough*)

said by kr33p:

---

that's easy to say when there is another provider. the rest of us have to move before we have that option (*cough* charter sucks *cough*)

---

I am not talking about switching to another provider. What this guy needs is to switch to a different class of service, from either the same provider or a different provider. If you switched from Comcast HSI to say, Verizon residential DSL and downloaded 500GB a month, Verizon would then yell at you the same way Comcast did. You could probably get away with it if you switched to a business-oriented broadband package.

If you feel the need to transfer that kind of data, you will have to spend the money to get something more robust that residential broadband. Something like a frame relay, fractional or complete T1 is suited for these things, residential broadband isn't.

Then why do they they offer them on business plans. While Comcast might not offer business service, many DSL providers do and find themselves in the same position.

I don't think it is ethical to loudly proclaim a simple statement in the bold print and then create exceptions in the fineprint that deny the bold print. If there statement indicated that it peak times they might throttle you back or that they didn't guarantee that the service would never break down that is one thing. If I say unlimited in bold print and in fine print, I say that this subject to a puke test, then I think that the puke test should be construed in a light most favorable to the user, not Comcast and that they cannot deny the plain meaning of their marketing through this tactic.

Gigs of what exactly? Look, I don't like download caps either but what in the world are you downloading? And where do you put almost half a terabyte of data per month?

Heh, no kidding. I think the most I've ever used on RoadRunner was maybe 100GB in a month upload/download. I can't even imagine what 500-600GB is used for. Too bad this guy is using the AOL backbone still, or I'd say good riddance.

I don't use that much myself, but I use around 100 gigs a month on completely legal files, as well as sending large files to friends. I can't really state anything specific since it's a large combination of a lot of things. Game demos and such are a part of it, as well as beta testing some games/apps. When you have to download an entirely new version of a 500-1gig file it adds up as well. Also using programs like bit torrent over night and while at work it continues to upload to other users. Sure I could use a hacked program to cut off the uploading when I'm not, but that's not being fair to people who are downloading.

Limits are going to kill off innovative apps like bit torrent if it continues. BT could reshape the file distribution world if people would use it and ISPs increased upload speeds.

The only thing is not every cable company has multiple isps with different terms of service.

How is someone on Comcast going to get another cable isp on the same network?

according to that letter, you cant use Comcast HSI for:

p2p, newsgroups, file sharing, streaming video/audio, and voice/video chat.

wow. that severely restricts what I can do on the web.

Basically anything that uses the "High Speed" of "Comcast High Speed Internet" is a violation of the AUP.

very nice.

said by tiger72:

---

according to that letter, you cant use Comcast HSI for:

p2p, newsgroups, file sharing, streaming video/audio, and voice/video chat.

wow. that severely restricts what I can do on the web.

Basically anything that uses the "High Speed" of "Comcast High Speed Internet" is a violation of the AUP.

very nice.

---

Its because they aren't offering those services and can't figure out how to make money off of them. I can bet you that the day they figure out how to offer streaming video/audio or VoIP, those restrictions will be gone and you'll be able to do them...
.
.
.
.
.
.
So long as they come from Comcast.

Kinda like OOL's unknown upload BW cap. Oh you can upload, just don't cross the invisible line. =/ Good thing they haven't "implemented" had any download "caps" yet.

(400g/month eh Anamus ^^ Nice leeching.)

said by DSun1010:

---

Kinda like OOL's unknown upload BW cap. Oh you can upload, just don't cross the invisible line. =/ Good thing they haven't "implemented" had any download "caps" yet.

---

Sssssshhhhh....don't give Cablevision any ideas

While I don't see myself coming anywhere near that limit, and I would certainly be pissed if my neighbor was the one pulling all that data down, Comcast really should state their limits clearly to be fair to everyone.

And economic reasons aren't good enough to purposefully withhold information from your customers. That's just wrong. Shame on you Comcast.

For a few months. Heres how I see it, through an analogy:

You go to an all-you can eat place. There is a big sign up "All You Can Eat!". You happily shovel down 40 plates of food.

As you leave, the manager pulls you aside and says, "I know it's all you can eat, but we are losing fist fulls of money on your food. If you eat that much again, we'll kick you out."

The next day, you go back in and shovel down the food. On your 30th plate, the manager says enough and sends you packing, refunding your $4.99.

Did you get all you could eat? Yes, on the nights you paid, you got all you could. It was unlimited. The manager simply used his reserved right to deny service to anyone (so long as he did not break Federal civil rights laws).

said by joebear29:

---

For a few months. Heres how I see it, through an analogy:

You go to an all-you can eat place. There is a big sign up "All You Can Eat!". You happily shovel down 40 plates of food.

As you leave, the manager pulls you aside and says, "I know it's all you can eat, but we are losing fist fulls of money on your food. If you eat that much again, we'll kick you out."

The next day, you go back in and shovel down the food. On your 30th plate, the manager says enough and sends you packing, refunding your $4.99.

Did you get all you could eat? Yes, on the nights you paid, you got all you could. It was unlimited. The manager simply used his reserved right to deny service to anyone (so long as he did not break Federal civil rights laws).

---

Sorry, but I disagree. To be binding, a contract must be adhered to, and the terms must be specific. "Unlimited", or "all you can eat", means just that. Some people eat more than others, some eat less. It is the responsibility of the company to set a price that earns them a profit by averaging consumption.

No, I'm not a "bandwidth hog", nor do I condone them. They cause prices to rise and are responsible, in part, for inadequate service to other customers. I do believe that companies and individuals must adhere to their agreements, and that the verbiage be specific. For example, you could say, "all you can eat, up to a limit of 25 plates".

IMHO, the existing limitations are arbitrary, and must be specific. I believe a judge would be of the same opinion.

joebeear we are lucky that our isp isn't a pain like comcast, i sometime leech 200gb a month,othertimes it like 45-60gb. with all this bi*ching and whining moaning it driving me crazy man.
comprende?
oh yea, its greed...nothing else.

. . . while caps on the amount of downloads or uploads is not, in itself, a bad thing, there are certainly some legal ramifications to them when there is no published (or even available) documentation as to what these caps actually are.

It would seem that a class action lawsuit based on 1) false advertising (unlimited really means limited), 2) unenforcable clauses in the contract (tos) where the tos is too vague to be legally binding and/or 3) unenforcable clauses in the contract due to the fact that a party cannot legally be bound to portions of an agreement that are totally unilateral, would stand a very high chance of success.

The class here would be huge (how many Comcast customers are there?) and could be a huge money maker for some game law firm willing to front the costs.

While Comcast may have the money to fight such a suit, just the very REAL threat of such a suit going forward and what such a suit would cost them, both monetarily and in bad PR, would probably force them to either 1) make unlimited mean unlimited or 2) get rid of references to unlimited in their advertising and set published hard caps in their TOS.

Just my opinion from a non-legal mind.

Al

Here's a question. Suppose for whatever reason you have to blow W2K or XP off your machine and install from scratch. Ok, you've done that, now you need to run all the updates, security patches, etc for W2K. Has anyone ever added up all those critters? Isn't it approaching at least a gigs worth?

That could substantially cut into your 2gig a day limit. Suppose also you have to PCs at home and did the same thing. I wonder if Comcast ever took those things into consideration. I doubt it.

What are these companies going to do when everyone jumps onto VOIP??

"Beep- We're sorry, your call can not be completed because you have exceeded your allocation for the month, Please try again later"

These companies need to grow the networks to fit the customer base.

...I'd wager that you most likely deserved to be capped. Or cut off. Probably serving and/or downloading stuff that you're (a) not supposed to under general ISP TOS provisions/copyright laws or (b) that's taxing a network resource in your local area. Turn off the PC, go outside, and look at that lovely thing called the sun every once in awhile and you'll keep Comcast (or your ISP) off your back.

IronChefMorimoto

P.S. - Seriously -- they're just trying to get you outside and reasonably tanned. Part of their public image plan.

said by IronChefMoto:

---

P.S. - Seriously -- they're just trying to get you outside and reasonably tanned. Part of their public image plan.

---

Sorry but they are trying to kill you. Sun is bad for you, causes skin cancer. Can I sue Comcast for attempted murder now?

Actually have done the math, for win2000.

From a fresh, SP-0 install to fully patched SP4 w/ IE6 and MS Media 9 is now about 275 megs.

WWB

The bottom line in all of this is that most companies reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at their sole discretion. Provided they aren't breaking any laws (affirmative action, disabilities, age, sex, etc...), I don't see that we have any legal recourse.

Although sold as unlimited, most TOS have clauses that grants the ISP the right to decide whether or not you are using their service in a manner that is compatible with their product offering. Vague as it may sound, I don't know that we can do anything about it except take our business elsewhere.

Ahhh... now we're at the real crux of the matter at hand. Precious few HSI subscribers have a real choice and in the absence of competition, history has countless examples of monopoly abuse.

I don't know how we solve this problem without regulation or competition. I don't like the first but true competition may be impossible because of the high startup costs.

said by rradina:

---

Although sold as unlimited, most TOS have clauses that grants the ISP the right to decide whether or not you are using their service in a manner that is compatible with their product offering. Vague as it may sound, I don't know that we can do anything about it except take our business elsewhere. Ahhh... now we're at the real crux of the matter at hand. Precious few HSI subscribers have a real choice and in the absence of competition, history has countless examples of monopoly abuse.

---

You hit the nail right on the head with that. Years ago when I worked on the @Home roll-out, TCI's (and other carriers') customers were routinely getting 8Mb down x whatever-you-could-cram-in up - - until we saw too many "Hey, I think I'll run a hosting service from my home" customers hogging bandwith.

Since then, most any provider's TOS has been nebulous and vague enough to provide service terminations for whatever reason. Just like most "right to work" employment laws, providers have the right to terminate our service without jumping through many hoops.

Fact of life and, unfortunately, not like insurance where we have a myriad of choices...

I'd introduce myself, but I already know who I am.

Cable companies aren't keeping pace with demand. They should all be tier 1 networks by now, but they've slacked. These vague and non-stated bandwidth caps are just CYA smoke to put off the fact that their networks can't handle all their customers.

Comcast Customer: How much bandwidth can we use per month?
Comcast Rep: Its unlimited as long as you don't use it

I ran into this with DirecPC a few years ago for downloading over 200MB in 1 hour I think it was (it has been a while). So they throttled my speed back to that of dialup! They said if I did it to many times I would get a warning letter like you are seeing now. I argued the same thing about unlimited ....it should be JUST what it implies UNLIMITED! I think they should be made to say Limited use when advertising if they uses these type of policies. Just as before you can call yourself "broadband" you must have an upload of atleast 200+ (or is it 256?) but it should be listed never the less and I dont mean the fine print.

Yet another reason I like bellsouth...I dont know if they have limits but if they do I have never reached them. I download some BIG files some months without any problem.
I think it is a case of Comcast trying to pull customers in with these higher download speeds, but what good is it to have those speeds if you can only use them for half a day at full tilt.

[text was edited by author 2003-09-15 15:14:59]

said by statecop:

---

I ran into this with DirecPC a few years ago for downloading over 200MB in 1 hour I think it was (it has been a while). So they throttled my speed back to that of dialup!

---

That's their so-called FAP (fair access policy), which they have hidden away in some forgotten crevice of their web site. They give you 169 MB/hour (or 224 MB/hour at strange times of night, if I remember correctly), but in no way do they make this clear to their prospective customers. Comcast, on the other hand, seems to have no indication of what their "limit" is. They're making me think twice about signing up for their service if and when they come to my neighborhood.

I found out about the FAP on DirecPC when it was real new (I was on the one-way system). I had to press for 3 weeks threatening to take legal action before they ever told me what the "policy" was. Soon after that they started putting it on the web page.

SO, network and bandwidth hogging are not just for the illegal personal servers anymore - or at least the ones that violate (clearly stated as such) AUP's or TOS agreements.

If the gas meter in your car suddenly stopped working, would you have ANY idea of how far you could drive before refueling? Maybe AFTER you became stranded from a dry tank.

Or, how about how fast if the speedometer stopped working? Well, the traffic policeman could always tell you AFTER he stopped you. But not before you giving him the outer innocent lamb-faced, inner weasel-myself-of-a-ticket excuse (no, I am NOT a cop).

Wait a minute! Says here, "Speed Limit: 55" - Is that in mph, or km/h ? (NOT ALL signs expressly say "MPH", or do they?)

I'm so glad I bought this little gimzo - it's a little chimp-like, wind-up keyed furry toy monkey (much like the one in the KIA car commercials), wearing a bell-hop boy hat, clasping 2 cymbals. Plugs right into your USB port. You can download the drivers for it from your ISP website site's technical support page. (Just look for the monkey face icon, and then follow the links that look like bananas). Once the device is detected by your system (you'll here a chimp yelping sound), using the GUI, just set the monthly numerical Rx value provided by your ISP. When you've approached 90% of your ISP's allocated monthly download quota, the monkey's cymbals start clashing, notifying that you are approaching your download limit. The cymbal clashing and the chimp's yelping increase in rate and volume, proportionally with every additional 1% download increment after 90%. I understand next year's model will replace the cymbals with either timpani or bass drums. I CAN'T WAIT! I think it would make a great gift for my boss.

It seems to me they would be hesitant to post the limits because once they're known, it would be open the flood gates. Maybe, if your in the dark, more conservative users would be hesitant to download massive amounts. Doesn't make it right nonetheless.....if it says unlimited, it should be just that.

Seriously, customers should gather and sue them for that.
Most of heavy-loaders get illegal stuff so they don't bother.
The rules are not clearly marked and marketing unlimited term is misleading customers, so it can be reported for some federal agency.