 | | This is pathetic... Comcast... wtf are you smoking? | |
|
 | | | Re: This is pathetic... It's not like they have a choice. The FCC already slammed them on network neutrality, do you think they want to be slapped up again? | |
|
| |
approval from:
Romney2012 
| Re: This is pathetic... Q: What are CAPs for?
A: To differentiate commercial level usage from residential level service (and the cost to deliver it).
If you use far more than everyone else, it cost more than everyone else and you should pay more than everyone else (i.e. commercial service)
Even with this service offering combined with Hulu, Netflix, etc the vast majority of users don't come close to the 250G threshold. There needs to be some sort of line in order to ensure the cost to deliver residential service is not inflated for all by a minority of a few.
»Editorial: Caps are welcome
{insert OB CAP discussion here} | |
|
| | | | | Re: This is pathetic... "If you use far more than everyone else, it cost more than everyone else and you should pay more than everyone else (i.e. commercial service)"
And if you want to purchase that, it is NOT offered.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: This is pathetic... said by sturmvogel:"If you use far more than everyone else, it cost more than everyone else and you should pay more than everyone else (i.e. commercial service)" And if you want to purchase that, it is NOT offered. They can only sell it in places they have capacity.
I had no problem getting business service installed at my house here in Minnesota after the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades were rolled out. (It was prohibited before that due to neighborhood capacity concerns) | |
|
| | | | | | | this was also foreseen... Comcast is full of s***!
we had this debate when cablecos first announced caps to combat a supposed bandwidth crunch. If there was a bandwidth crunch, then why would an ISP that was instrumental in facilitating caps in order to help the bandwidth crunch turn around and circumvent there own remedy by offering even more media online chewing up even more bandwidth?
Money,thats why!
This cap issue has always been, and will always be about adding additional revenues. Its never been about intellectual property, thats the vehicle they used to sell it!
Its just freakin Comcraptic
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: this was also foreseen... said by S_engineer:This cap issue has always been, and will always be about adding additional revenues. Its never been about intellectual property, thats the vehicle they used to sell it! Its just freakin Comcraptic These cable companies want you accessing their content and services, or the content and services provided by their business partners, because it financially benefits them.
Throttling, traffic shaping, download caps, etc., can pose enough of an obstacle that it discourages people from accessing 3rd party content. At the end of the day I think companies like Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner would love nothing better than to become Internet gatekeepers.
If you think that Comcast's 250GB cap is craptastic, Time Warner is testing new account packages that would limit monthly downloads to 5GB - 40GB...
»www.newsadmin.com/usenet_comment···2009.asp | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: this was also foreseen... thank you comcast. you helped convince my significant other that verizon FIOS is better for us. come on spring already | |
|
| | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Since most commercial bandwidth is bought by the 95th percentile method(google 95th percentile bandwidth), they do not by pay by the GB but by the Mbps. So downloading during off peak hours costs them nothing. Monthly caps do not address congestion either. Their throttling system addresses the issue of congestion. So why are they capping?
I think they have been developing this video for a long time (pre cap). Now that they have it developed they are in a bad situation with the cap. Since their video service would presumably live on their own backbone there would be no transit costs. | |
|
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: This is pathetic... said by Lazlow:Since most commercial bandwidth is bought by the 95th percentile method(google 95th percentile bandwidth), they do not by pay by the GB but by the Mbps. So downloading during off peak hours costs them nothing. Monthly caps do not address congestion either. Their throttling system addresses the issue of congestion. So why are they capping? According to recent stories posted here there are a large number of people who don't even know what 1GB of data actually is, so hopes of explaining 95th percentile billing to the average customer is a lost cause. The cap is nothing more than a yardstick to allow the heavy users to gauge "how much is too much." The QoS system helps address the impact of congestion on the network, but in an ideal world you should queue as close to 0.0% of the time as possible. I believe the goal of the cap is simply to temper some of the demand to reduce the need to queue.
said by Lazlow:I think they have been developing this video for a long time (pre cap). Now that they have it developed they are in a bad situation with the cap. Since their video service would presumably live on their own backbone there would be no transit costs. With a provider the size of Comcast, the backbone costs represent a very minimal portion of the overall service costs. Whether it's hosted on the big bad Internet or on their own internal network is somewhat a moot point with the contracts they undoubtedly have in place. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: This is pathetic... But its the contracts they might have in place that make the whole bandwidth crunch a falicy. Comcast is now trying to sell you advertising via their psuedo " online tv" on bandwidth that wasn't supposed to be there. Wasn't this the justification for the caps in the first place?
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
|
| | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: This is pathetic... said by S_engineer:But its the contracts they might have in place that make the whole bandwidth crunch a falicy. Backbone capacity is only loosely related to access capacity. I don't care how many 10GigE, 40GigE, or 100GigE pipes you have in the core, at the edge you're still limited to 38mbps 6MHz channels on a 750-1000MHz DOCSIS plant that has to be shared between video and data services.
You can have all of the capacity in the world at the core, and it doesn't help you one bit when you run into issues at the edge. | |
|
| | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
2 edits | espaeth
The 95th percentile mention was just to prove that during off peak hours there is no such thing as too much. It causes no (HSI) issues for the ISP and it does not cause congestion. This is why a monthly cap does absolutely nothing to address congestion. The heavy downloaders have been around since the start of cable HSI. For the most part they have always(in the past) told the heavy downloaders that they do not care how much they download as long as it does not cause problems on the network (ie download during off peak hours). Since most heavy downloaders are not dumb, they listened and were left alone. Those that did not listen, got the boot for abuse (rightfully so). | |
|
| | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: This is pathetic... said by Lazlow:For the most part they have always(in the past) told the heavy downloaders that they do not care how much they download as long as it does not cause problems on the network (ie download during off peak hours). Since most heavy downloaders are not dumb, they listened and were left alone. Those that did not listen, got the boot for abuse (rightfully so). The problem with open-ended "if it does not cause problems" clauses like that is that people need literal and defined warnings. It's the reason we need ridiculous things like "Warning: beverage is hot" notices on coffee and little yellow signs on wet floors.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL_IrjQoLK0
That guy is the quintessential heavy user who needs to have boundaries defined. He has a fair argument -- you can't tell people they're using "too much" unless you actually define what "too much" constitutes. | |
|
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: This is pathetic... Espaeth
I would bet if we could hear a recording of that individual's conversation that they hinted/suggested that he move his downloads to off peak hours. Generally, what happens is when a node hits a certain congestion level a red flag is sent up. The NOC looks at the particular node to see what is causing the issue. When they see that one particular user is causing the red flag(causing congestion) on a regular basis that user gets put on the ISPs "hit list"(abuse), this virtually always occurs exclusively during peak usage times. Congestion has nothing to do with GB/month. It is to about %load(Mbps) during peak usage hours. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: This is pathetic... said by Lazlow:Espaeth I would bet if we could hear a recording of that individual's conversation that they hinted/suggested that he move his downloads to off peak hours. Generally, what happens is when a node hits a certain congestion level a red flag is sent up. The NOC looks at the particular node to see what is causing the issue. When they see that one particular user is causing the red flag(causing congestion) on a regular basis that user gets put on the ISPs "hit list"(abuse), this virtually always occurs exclusively during peak usage times. Congestion has nothing to do with GB/month. It is to about %load(Mbps) during peak usage hours. I'll take you up on that bet. Because I got the call, and it went just like his, as far as what they told me. Almost as if it's a script and maybe it is. My problem was due in part to a major service problem that they would not take into account. Mine was all about GB's and ONLY in 1 month out of over 7 years. The guy who called me also told me he couldn't give me a number because it also changed every month. I never mentioned suing them, but he dared me to sue them. He was quite belligerent and that whole dept. acted in a hostile manner. I didn't sue, but I have pursued other avenues, but I won't go any farther on that.
My node was really quiet. There was also not 1 complaint. I dealt with a couple of supervisors who were very nice that monitored things for me. Once my connection was fixed, I was down to a little over 2 Gigs per day. But no one could tell me if I'd keep my service, and since I telecommute (and their horrible treatment of me), I left them. I could not risk doing business with Comcast anymore. After being a customer of their's for so many years, and paying over 200/mo to them, they showed me they could care less about my business, even though they were an important part of the problem. And they know it. | |
|
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | espaeth
Here is an easy way to demonstrate what I mean. Which of these two individuals is causing a problem?
1. A heavy user that downloads 750GB/month between 11pm and 8am exclusively.
2. A user that stays within the cap (250GB?), downloads at his full speed(16Mbps?) exclusively between 7pm and 9:30pm.
The first guy will be causing zero (0) congestion. The second will be using over 40% of the total shared bandwidth on his channel. Just three such individuals on the same channel using #2 will bring the channel to it's knees. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | Re: This is pathetic... said by Lazlow:espaeth Here is an easy way to demonstrate what I mean. Which of these two individuals is causing a problem? So if Comcast offered a trade, 1GB peak usage will give you 2GB off peak, they can use that carrot to manage traffic, at no additional cost, and use up some of that unused evening bandwidth. They can work with NetFlix to allow an evening download for playback next night. Great idea I have here. | |
|
| | | | | | | | wev567
join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA | Comcast is using caps and shaping traffic to keep both kinds of customers from causing troubles. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
2 edits | Re: This is pathetic... wev567
That is just my point. The type #1 customer is NOT causing any trouble(for HSI) and the monthly cap does nothing to prevent the type #2 customer from causing a problem. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: This is pathetic... In addition, they get to reap the advertising revenues from streams that Comcast itself is pushing. This in its very form is monopolistic.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
|
| | | | | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by espaeth:said by Lazlow:For the most part they have always(in the past) told the heavy downloaders that they do not care how much they download as long as it does not cause problems on the network (ie download during off peak hours). Since most heavy downloaders are not dumb, they listened and were left alone. Those that did not listen, got the boot for abuse (rightfully so). The problem with open-ended "if it does not cause problems" clauses like that is that people need literal and defined warnings. It's the reason we need ridiculous things like "Warning: beverage is hot" notices on coffee and little yellow signs on wet floors. (youtube clip) guy is the quintessential heavy user who needs to have boundaries defined. He has a fair argument -- you can't tell people they're using "too much" unless you actually define what "too much" constitutes. Ok first of all this video must be old because Comcast has a CLEAR limit of 250 GB for nearly 6 months. Second before they had a cler cap the "invisibe cap" they had I have not heard of a person getting a call unless they exceeded over 500 GB in a month. 500 GB is A LOT.
He says he "downloads" a lot. You've got to be super rich to "download" 500 GB of legal stuff. Which usually cost $$$$$$$$. I mean sure 500 GB is about 85-90 HD movies from XBL or itunes. Each movie is about $5-$6 to rent. So that's what $500 a month in rental fees. Doubtful he's paying that. 500 GB is about 100,000 songs. At 99 cents a song tha's $100,000 a month. Once again doubtful. Over 99.9% of youtube videos are incoded at a max rate of 350 kbps. Even watching youtube 24/7 would only use up 108 GB a month. most of Hulu's conetent is encoded ata max bitrate of 14 Mbps. Especially back when this video had to be made. watching Hulu 24/7 would use up 400 GB a month. Fact is that you have to really try hard to use up 500 GB or more in a month. Especially if your single and don't have kids. Which I didn't hear him mentioning about having a family. | |
|
| | | | | | | | joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | Re: This is pathetic... said by BF69:You've got to be super rich to "download" 500 GB of legal stuff. Which usually cost $$$$$$$$. NetFlix subscribers have unlimited streaming video. I'm told they run 4-5GB/2hr movie. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | There are legal sites with video content that are flat rate at about $60/month. Your calculations are based on the lack of knowledge of what is available.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | 250GB is equal to the capacity of 5 Blu-Ray disks. Ain't much.
Of course, that's the whole point - 'don't want to cannibalize those high-margin TV subscriptions. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by fifty nine:It's not like they have a choice. The FCC already slammed them on network neutrality, do you think they want to be slapped up again? then they need to up them caps now don't they? | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: This is pathetic... Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? | |
|
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: This is pathetic... said by openbox9:Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? Not now but as more people watch more online video which is being presented in ever higher bitrates it will be an issue very soon. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: This is pathetic... And I would suggest that Comcast et al., will review their caps as average customers demand more. | |
|
| | | |  wenter99Alpha MalePremium
join:2003-12-09
Albuquerque, NM | said by openbox9:Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? Only what you read from the regular handfull who piss and moan about it around here.
--
Terry
"Sometimes all you can do is just hunker down and take it, like a jackass caught out in a hail storm". LBJ | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: This is pathetic... said by wenter99:said by openbox9:Does any data exist showing the cap to be an issue for the vast majority of Comcast customers? Only what you read from the regular handfull who piss and moan about it around here. Or from the CC fanboys that troll trying to counter act the discontent.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| |  CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by fifty nine:It's not like they have a choice. The FCC already slammed them on network neutrality, do you think they want to be slapped up again? Not like they HAD a choice? I highly DOUBT the FCC is MAKING Comcast count the cap AGAINST thier OWN services  | |
|
| | |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | "It's not like they have a choice."
Sure they do. They could improve their network to the point that their users can actually can USE the service they pay for to its full extent and then eliminate the need for any caps at all. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the FCC can cry but they really couldnt do anything to comcast if their broadband VOD didnt effect the cap. just claim it is an extension of the existing TV service and not a new data service.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | Re: This is pathetic... Then they'd have to do like CDV and put it over a separate network.
Also remember that the FCC has a new Chairman, and Obama wants "broadband for everyone." It will be interesting to see what happens. | |
|
|  FicmanSPremium
join:2005-01-11
Brownsburg, IN | +1
Agreed... this is getting nutz... | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: This is pathetic... >>Not happy with that? go with another isp
If only that were possible. You know full well it isn't for some people. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | | | Re: This is pathetic... You are full of crap. I live in MIDTOWN ATLANTA, not exactly countryside. I have AT&T's $10 dsl as backup and it hardly ever works because I am too far from the CO. There is no other broadband option for me thats anything close to the price I pay now. I get so angry when people outright lie. You know what you say is false yet you spew forth. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| When 250GBs isn't enough, they can build infrastructure and raise the cap. It would be unfair competition to give an artificial preference for their broadband TV... but also, it would be against their interests to have everyone drop their cable subscription. | |
|
|  jsz0Premium
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | ^^ Would you prefer Comcast gave their own video site special treatment and not count against a cap? 250GB is a lot of data -- it's really up to the customer how they want to use it. | |
|
| | | | Re: This is pathetic... said by jsz0:^^ Would you prefer Comcast gave their own video site special treatment and not count against a cap? 250GB is a lot of data -- it's really up to the customer how they want to use it. How about no cap, since it is not advertised when signing up for service ?
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | wenter99Alpha MalePremium
join:2003-12-09
Albuquerque, NM | Re: This is pathetic... said by sturmvogel:said by jsz0:^^ Would you prefer Comcast gave their own video site special treatment and not count against a cap? 250GB is a lot of data -- it's really up to the customer how they want to use it. How about no cap, since it is not advertised when signing up for service ? This isn't pathetic at all. This is part of a good business plan...
Do good business and be crapped on for it... or do monkey business and be crapped on for it.. There's a customer for every occasion...
--
Terry
"Sometimes all you can do is just hunker down and take it, like a jackass caught out in a hail storm". LBJ | |
|
| | joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | said by jsz0:250GB is a lot of data -- it's really up to the customer how they want to use it. It may very well be, but without a meter from Comcast, most users don't know. | |
|
| | CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by jsz0:^^ Would you prefer Comcast gave their own video site special treatment and not count against a cap? 250GB is a lot of data -- it's really up to the customer how they want to use it. Yes, are using their services, if you are viewing say, Hulu, I can understand that going against the caps, but using Comcast and Comcast VOD/Online services, NO, I do not EXPECT them to put THEIR services towards the cap. | |
|
| | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: This is pathetic... Cheese
Comcast has no choice. If they did not charge the usage against their content they would get hit with violating net neutrality. Just look at the current situation they are in with their VOIP product already. | |
|
| | I wondered... I was wondering as I saw a comcast truck go by with the big wordss More Video OnDemand if that would count against the cap and now I know. So how can you have more OnDemand when you reach you cap? Will there be a display saying "Sorry but you have reached you monthly allowance of OnDemand"
--
Join SETI Now! | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | Unless your not on their network... I hope! | |
|
| | It's a great scam Comcast has a great scam going. Rather than spend money to expand network capacity, they pretend there is scarcity and charge extra for using more bandwidth, thereby increasing profits.
It's not unlike a congested highway. The government responsible for it could add lanes, which would ease traffic flow, but that would cost money. So instead, they turn it into a toll road, thereby reducing traffic and increasing revenue without any significant cost increase. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
 danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | And This is why Caps will disappear in the future so as to allow the market place to decide who delivers the best content.
Comcast can still make a killing by providing a quality high speed experience and quality local high speed content thats stutter free and locally cached to their subscribers which will make it appealing to subscribers to pull down and wont bog their interconnects down. | |
|
| Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
 ·Comcast
| Re: And This is why Caps will disappear in the future said by danclan:so as to allow the market place to decide who delivers the best content. Comcast can still make a killing by providing a quality high speed experience and quality local high speed content thats stutter free and locally cached to their subscribers which will make it appealing to subscribers to pull down and wont bog their interconnects down. No need to worry about comcrap... They were traffic shaping for at least a year now so of course their shady and dishonest about what they do behind our back
They will cease to exist in a few years when many have flocked to another isp | |
|
| | blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL | Re: And This is why Caps will disappear in the future said by jadebangle
They will cease to exist in a few years when many have flocked to another isp
[/BQUOTE :What ISP? My choices are Comcast or AT&T. AT&T will implement caps that are way lower to Comcast. I was planning on leaving AT&T for Comcast when AT&T implemented their caps in my area. | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southeast
| humm its see how much more longer will it take before they start to bitch out losing people and they are not making enough money to pay there bills then what? They get what they wanted, to drive your self in the ground as fast as you can.
I once thought that the big three auto makers really had some stupid ideas about 5 years ago, and look where they are at now. Now look at comcast with this mess how much longer will it take them,before they are in the same boat bitching they are poor. | |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: humm its see That would be hilarious. Didn't they just come off of several quarters of record profits? | |
|
 runnoftPremium
join:2003-10-14
Deerfield, IL
kudos:1
·Comcast
| Not a bonus, Comcast This Comcast customer doesn't care about more (or ANY) On Demand, especially low-def On Demand. I never watch it.
I want better quality High Def on the current HD channels and more High Def channels. I'm tired of the second-rate TV signal and the digital artifacts and dropouts.
And if adding online On Demand is going to create more neighborhood online traffic and slow the online experience for me if my neighbors use it, I don't want that, either. | |
|
miscDude
join:2005-03-24
Hendersonville, NC | Clarification looking at some of the comments here I think some clarification needs to be made.
The caps are going to apply to the "OnDemand Online"... not to your Video OnDemand accessed via your settop box. Why? 2 totally different delivery methods.
The "OnDemand Online" would be accessed by going to something like www.comcastondemand.com via any internet enabled device and be a streaming video website, therefor it is still using the internet and apply towards the caps.
Video OnDemand which you access thru your settop box is entirely different. It can only be accessed via a settop box. It also does not use DOCSIS or internet bandwidth to stream. When you order a traditional VoD item thru your box, it creates a dedicated QAM video channel and streams to the box just like any linear channel. This is also why qam-tuner TV's will occasionally pick up someone else's VOD stream.
They are two totally different delivery technologies and methods. The Comcast 250gig cap only applies to your internet connection. If you figured it would also apply to your linear video, then technically just watching a few hours of regular HD programming on Discovery HD (or HBO HD, etc etc) would exceed that cap since linear video's bandwidth is MUCH bigger. (instead of 650meg or so for a "hd" hour program via the net, you'd be looking at 12-20gig easily if recording the straight uncompressed HD stream within a QAM carrier.) | |
|
Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI | I hope caps expand Man, Caps better expand later on so people can do more things, sooner or later you will have to people want to do other things using broadband Comcast!!! | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 |  The FCC had nothing to do with the Caps
THE FCC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CAPS
... and now read it this way ...
THE CAPS, THE FCC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM
... and now perhaps ...
THE FCC THINKS THAT CAPS ARE FOR TOOTHPASTE
... and if that's not enough ...
The caps are about illuminating a long-standing invisible cap that existed long before the FCC investigation began. Facing an investigation by the FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL for its failure to tell consumers that its service was limited, Comcast instituted the 250 GB threshold.
It's not really much of a cap -- it's only one of the two required thresholds -- the other one is that you have to be one of the top 1,000 users system-wide.
If you are one of the top 1,000 out of 15 million, AND if your consumption is over 250 GB, THEN you will get your first warning call. If you've already had a warning call, then they may cut you off for a year.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
|
| |
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | That needs to be printed on every advertisement, in at least eight point type. | |
|
| | hahha the math says you need a cap of at least 2 TB and after a week of tv , off goes the tv as a 5 megabit line = 23 minute dl of a 45 minute episode,
that unfortunately is 1.6 TB a month, you do the math and now i love it cause it comes smack right at them, the proof is that tv over cable and everything else that's CONSTANTLY streamed over your line is several TB's and guess what , this is gonna bite them hard ..... | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
rob316
join:2005-10-17
Carteret, NJ | Concast=Joke This company is a joke can't they get anything right lol | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Provide a useless service.... Provide a useless service that counts against the cap and say it solves the problem of neutrality towards true online services. We all know that Comcast is trying to bully out online TV services to protect their standard offerings. They don't expect this service to be used, and we're not stupid enough to believe that this is an honest attempt to compete, but rather a smokescreen. | |
|
| | So ridiculous! Isn't that just like Comcrap is. Screw you over on the caps and throttling, and now on a service that THEY provide. | |
|
| | vote with your feet cancel your comcast services... cite the many new terms of service that benefit the company over it's customers.. then make your you tell them no matter how good the retention deal gets, your still canceling. end of story!
make comcast pay! | |
|
| | Sattellite I just called and canc. my service, DSL, or Satellite, is just as good. they will be next in bankruptcy..GO POUND SAND, BRIAN ROBERTS! | |
|
 Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3 | Cap included? Massive FAIL. | |
|
 SolarPupHardware GodPremium
join:2002-03-07
Greeley, CO | Grr My Question is, is what about us that use it for legitimate stuff, i.e. Microsoft Technet DVD downloads and we get tapped out at 250gb? Thats pretty crappy..
--
...I don't have a 16mb speedy connection, I fly through the net at low altitudes! | |
|
| | | Re: Grr said by SolarPup:My Question is, is what about us that use it for legitimate stuff, i.e. Microsoft Technet DVD downloads and we get tapped out at 250gb? Thats pretty crappy.. It doesn't matter, it still counts against the cap. | |
|
 thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 | I remember falling asleep as I watched The Honeymooners I hope their DVR has a sensor that detects if you doze off, or there'll be a lot of angry people who can't check their email in the morning. | |
|
| | what a joke Comcast = fail.
What a joke actually going to count it against your cap.
By FiOS.
Cuck Fomcast. | |
|
|
|
