Confirmed: Mediacom Starts Charging Overages Overages Won't 'Have Much Impact on our Customer Base' Tipped by RyanThaDude 
Yesterday we noted that our forums were filled with rumors that Mediacom would be the latest ISP to start charging users usage overages, despite the ever-dropping cost of delivering fixed line bandwidth to consumers. Mediacom has since confirmed the plans, a tech in our forums noting that the changes will begin August 1, after which point new users -- or users who move to one of Mediacom's new usage plans, will pay $10 for 50 GB of data if they cross their caps. The new plans, as rumored by our users: •Mediacom Launch 150GB (3 Mbps) •Mediacom Prime 250GB (12-15 Mbps) •Mediacom Prime Plus 350GB (20 Mbps) •Mediacom Ultra 999GB (50 Mbps) •Mediacom Ultra Plus 999GB (105 Mbps) "We’ve implemented the usage allowances to ensure we can deliver on our promise of Always Faster Internet," insists the company, adding that "in reality, only 2% of our users exceed our usage allowances." "Our average Internet subscriber currently uses only 31 GB of data per month, so we don’t expect these allowances to have much impact on our customer base," says the company. The justifications for these price hikes (and that is what they are) is that they're necessary either due to congestion from heavy users or financial necessity. Except that congestion on any well-designed fixed line network is relatively minimal, and the cost to provide fixed broadband services continues to drop sharply. In reality (to borrow Mediacom's language), the caps are actually designed to protect future TV revenues from Internet video, and to give investors and executives a new and exciting way to jack up already high prices on broadband subscribers. Despite technological advancements, expect these caps to shrink and overage fees to soar. Despite launching these new caps and overages on August 1, Mediacom hasn't yet seen fit to actually release a usage meter for these users. While existing customers aren't impacted yet, it seems likely they will be as existing contracts expire and customers call in to renew.
|
  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | well crap. I just figured out that mediacom uses Giganews too. This blows. | |
|  | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: well crap. Guess you'll have to upgrade to the 50M package then. Or, you know, only download stuff that you'll actually watch/listen to/use. The horror! | |
| | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: well crap. oh, does the limits only include downloading? I was worried that I wouldn't be able to post as much. | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: well crap. Ohhhhh...I'm sure it's a combined limit. How much of the material you're posting is non-infringing?  | |
| | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: well crap. plenty is infringing I'm sure, but I also use usenet as a means to backup my system. damn cheap way to back stuff up. Just make sure you encrypt it and keep the key safe. | |
|
| | | JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL | It's a combined download/upload cap. If you're an existing customer, you have no cap until you make a change to your internet service. | |
|
| | great marketing bs " our promise of Always Faster Internet".
yeah....bandwidth and usage are not the same. Putting a cap on usage will not speed up your connection during peak hours.
Nice marketing spin. Pure cash grab. | |
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Not sure of the pricing... ... But those limits don't look too bad. | |
| | | | Re: Not sure of the pricing... It is better than some of their competition. LISCO and Centurylink for example. Some of their other competitors only offer 1.5mbps DSL. Really they don't have much competition in most markets. | |
| | | JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
| Re: Not sure of the pricing... said by silbaco:It is better than some of their competition. LISCO and Centurylink for example. Some of their other competitors only offer 1.5mbps DSL. Really they don't have much competition in most markets.
Yeah, it's the same here. Frontier 7.1mbps (actually 6.5mbps) DSL or Mediacom 20mbps (actually 28mbps with speedboost) cable (which is cheaper, I could have gotten 50mbps for the same price I was paying Frontier). I don't have any other options in this area at the same or faster speeds. | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Putting a usage cap on 1.5Mbps DSL is like putting a speed governor on a Smart car.
(This past week, a Smart car was involved in a "high speed" chase. At one point the news media said the suspect was driving in excess of 100kph! That was probably down hill with a tail wind...)
I guess if you used the entire 1.5Mbps 24 hours a day for an entire month, it would add up. I think I calculated it could get as high as 400GB or 500GB. | |
|
| | Doesn't make sense... quote:
"We’ve implemented the usage allowances to ensure we can deliver on our promise of Always Faster Internet," insists the company, adding that "in reality, only 2% of our users exceed our usage allowances." "Our average Internet subscriber currently uses only 31 GB of data per month, so we don’t expect these allowances to have much impact on our customer base," says the company.
So is Mediacom admitting that that they can't handle 2% heavy users and that they must "cap" everyone else. And like someone said before me, how is "usage" and "speed" related in the first place? Also the last time I checked, these ISP's already have throttle mechanisms in place, ala speed tiers. If congestion was such a big deal, they could simply throttle during peak hours. | |
| | | at least their caps line up companies like comcast give everybody a flat cap rate. at least mediacom's caps scale with the package appropriately. ~1TB is not an unreasonable cap for someone who would get the 105Mb package. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: at least their caps line up Glad I'm not the only one who doesn't think the caps are unreasonable. 999GB is more than enough for everything I do, and I'd probably get the 50M plan if I was in that area anyway. | |
| | | | | Re: at least their caps line up Yea but what about the homes that have 15 laptops, 7 Xboxes, 9 PS3s, 11 Rokus, 36 pc that try and watch 342 netflix streams while downloading 143 Linux ISOs?
It won't be long before someone here tries to justify why 999GB is unreasonable.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
| | | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: at least their caps line up Let's see..
We have 6 laptops, 4 desktops, 3 Roku's, 2 Xbox 360's, and a home server that tunnels to our main network.
I'm sure we could eat through a TB worth of data in a month.. maybe less. | |
| | | | | | | Re: at least their caps line up Have you ever seen what's on the other side of those big rectangles with the funny looking knobs?
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
| | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: at least their caps line up said by battleop:Have you ever seen what's on the other side of those big rectangles with the funny looking knobs? Ya. They're really noisy, has quite a bit of heat that comes out of them, and has lots of cables and fans.
Oh, you mean the other door | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: at least their caps line up "has quite a bit of heat that comes out of them"
That pretty much sums up the other door right now.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | I have two desktops, a PS3, six or more laptops, a few smartphones and a PS3. I have to really try to get above, say, 400GB...and that's with multiple people on the network. | |
| | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | So you have 15 devices in your household.
Most folks I know have one PC, or are jettisoning it for an iPad, neither of which they really use. They might consume 500mb a month.
Why should they pay the same rate as a household with a half-dozen people? | |
| | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: at least their caps line up said by elray:Why should they pay the same rate as a household with a half-dozen people? Hey, if they get the fastest plan possible, they should pay the same as another person that will (and can) utilize the fastest plan possible.
So, what happens if Windows needs a service pack? Buy a bigger bucket so you don't go over? What if it's too late and you pass out from the bill?
I'm sick of this argument. "Why should I pay for THEIR internet access". You're not. We all pay for it and we like to get our money's worth instead of getting less.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
| | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: at least their caps line up said by Simba7:said by elray:Why should they pay the same rate as a household with a half-dozen people? I'm sick of this argument. "Why should I pay for THEIR internet access". You're not. We all pay for it and we like to get our money's worth instead of getting less. You can be sick of the argument, but that doesn't make it invalid.
1/3rd of the customer base uses next to nothing - to the point that, like cellular service before, we could do without a hardwired connection. CableCo needs to sell us a service that reflects the lower usage level.
If you use so much that you exceed the cap on your residential plan, there are business-grade plans available without caps. | |
| | | | | | | | | I pay Mediacom Thousands of dollars a month to get a dedicated speed, unlimited usage, and 24x7 support. You can too.
Monies worth? LMAO
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net | |
| | | | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: at least their caps line up said by gunther_01:I pay Mediacom Thousands of dollars a month to get a dedicated speed, unlimited usage, and 24x7 support. You can too.
Monies worth? LMAO Dedicated speed.. through a cable modem? Try again. Only way you can get dedicated speed is through a DS1 (T1), DS3 (T3), OC3, etc. They can't put an SLA like that on a cable modem since it's a ring network and being shared by other users on the same node. DSL, maybe (I wouldn't bet on it), but definitely not on a cable modem.
Sounds like someone needs to take a few NE courses.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: at least their caps line up I have a fiber connection from them. The point is you can have anything you want if you pay for it. Paying $50 a month has no guarantee of anything, but yet most people think it does.
It doesn't. Be happy you get what you get for what you pay. I don't need to take any courses thank you. I have taken enough already.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I agree. The caps seem reasonable. However, $10 for another 50GB seems stiff. | |
|
| Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | ..except that the 50M package has the same cap.
If they did it correctly, it'd be a 1.5TB cap for 105mbps and 1TB for 50mbps. | |
| | | | | Re: at least their caps line up i never said it was perfect, but it's a lot more reasonable than comcast's one-size-fits-all cap of 300GB. there's no reason to get anything above the lower tiers on comcast if you get 300GB with 20Mb or 105Mb. | |
| | | JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL | 2TB for 105mbps would be reasonable, anything less than that doesn't line up with the other tiers. | |
|
| | | Hard to see how being restricted to 2% usage is "not unreasonable". 1TB is nothing, for $20 you could get an ancient DSL connection to do that | |
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: at least their caps line up said by Wilsdom:Hard to see how being restricted to 2% usage is "not unreasonable". 1TB is nothing, for $20 you could get an ancient DSL connection to do that
Speed and capacity are 2 different things. There are a lot of people who are more than willing to pay for higher speed(and quicker access) and don't need to download or upload terabytes of data. For them no caps or very high caps are irrelevant.
It doesn't follow that having a fast link means you have to use the total available bandwidth 24x7 to get your money's worth. But every time the subject of caps and speed arises, we are then inundated by the nonsensical stats of reaching the cap in 73 mins, or 1 day, or 1 week.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
| | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: at least their caps line up Caps are not about network management either, they are about making more money in any way possible. It's never been about network management. It's about customer management. | |
| | | | | | They are related. I'll accept that ISPs offering deluxe speed packages might not be able to support 24/7 use, but any cap should allow you to use at least 1/3 or 1/4 of the bandwidth. It is in fact nonsensical to offer a connection that can only be used a few hours per month. The difference in the speed for such a small amount of data will not be very perceptible, while the need to ration your use could be extremely perceptible. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Charter
| said by nanaki333:companies like comcast give everybody a flat cap rate. at least mediacom's caps scale with the package appropriately. ~1TB is not an unreasonable cap for someone who would get the 105Mb package.
at 105mbps, you can download 13.125MB/s. Thats 787MB per minute. Thats 47250MB per hour. thats 1107GB per day. Its possible to use over 32TB per month in download alone. At 105mbps, you can blow thru your entire cap in less than a day(counting upload). Since when is this a reasonable cap? since when is any cap reasonable? Its just a pure cash grab, and thats it. I use between 900GB and 2TB right now, with charters ultra100 tier(soft cap area). | |
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: at least their caps line up said by Chubbysumo:said by nanaki333:companies like comcast give everybody a flat cap rate. at least mediacom's caps scale with the package appropriately. ~1TB is not an unreasonable cap for someone who would get the 105Mb package.
at 105mbps, you can download 13.125MB/s. Thats 787MB per minute. Thats 47250MB per hour. thats 1107GB per day. Its possible to use over 32TB per month in download alone. At 105mbps, you can blow thru your entire cap in less than a day(counting upload). Since when is this a reasonable cap? since when is any cap reasonable? Its just a pure cash grab, and thats it. I use between 900GB and 2TB right now, with charters ultra100 tier(soft cap area). Name me some legitimate uses for downloading 32 TB a month? Even running 6 Netflix streams 24 hours a day all month uses only 10 TB. Running a dozen streams of Spotify premium which streams at 320 Kbps( Pandora maxes out at 192 kbps ) 24/7 uses only 1 TB a month. Having 4 PCs all running OnLive 24/7 would use 8 TB a month. Ok that's 19 TB a month. Not even close to 32 TB.
Also show me ONE internet application that can even use 105 Mbps? Even HDX Vudu videos top out at 10 Mbps.
If you honestly think that any ISP can handle all their customers are even 1/8 of their customers maxing out 105 Mbps connection 24/7 you are very naive. | |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT | ... "Welcome to Bob's orchard! Here's your bushel basket. Now remember, you're only allowed to put three apples in it! Enjoy!" | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: ... said by Rekrul:"Welcome to Bob's orchard! Here's your bushel basket. Now remember, you're only allowed to put three apples in it! Enjoy!"
You're analogy is wrong. Is the basket infinite? Nope. It has a limited capacity otherwise known as a CAP. Once you fill the basket you can only get more apples unless you pay for another basket.
Show me a "pick your own" farm that lets you pick as much as you want for one price. I actually go to these places and none of them have that business model. | |
| | | | | Re: ... Well, no, his analogy is actually somewhat OK because he said the basket is a 'bushel' basket (implying that the basket can hold 48lbs of apples), but you can only put three apples in it, not that the basket is infinite. | |
| | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by BF69:You're analogy is wrong. Is the basket infinite? Nope. It has a limited capacity otherwise known as a CAP. Once you fill the basket you can only get more apples unless you pay for another basket. Exactly! The basket has a built-in limit. If the orchard is charging you a set price and providing you with a container you should be allowed to use it to capacity. If they don't want you to take that much, they shouldn't give you such a large container in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense to give you a container capable of holding dozens of apples, and then telling you that you can only put three in it. The normal reaction of most people would be "Why are you giving me this huge basket if I'm not allowed to use it?"
In the same way that the basket has a built-in limit, every internet account also has a built-in limit, which can be computed with: ??mb x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 30 days. Plug in your connection speed, then convert the result from megabits to megabytes, and that's your account's built-in limit.
Unless the ISPs have some really stupid engineers working for them, they already know this. They knew when they created the various speed tiers, exactly how much bandwidth they were selling to their customers. The accounts are already capped by practical limits.
ISPs are some of the most deceptive businesses around. They want you to pay for fast service, but they don't want you to actually use it.
Who's going to pay for 100Mb service to check their email? Or watch YouTube videos? Hell, you don't even need 50Mb service for that. | |
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: ... said by Rekrul:Exactly! The basket has a built-in limit. If the orchard is charging you a set price and providing you with a container you should be allowed to use it to capacity You're still off. First you say the basket is speed then you say the basket is data. 2 different things. Your analogy only works if the ISP sells you a 100 Mbps speed tier then says you can only use 12 Mbps. The speed limit on the interstate has nothing to do with how many miles I can drive. | |
| | | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: ... said by BF69:You're still off. First you say the basket is speed then you say the basket is data. 2 different things. Your analogy only works if the ISP sells you a 100 Mbps speed tier then says you can only use 12 Mbps. No, my analogy is fine the way it is.
The basket is speed and the apples are data. You're given a large basket that can hold many apples, but are then artificially limited to a very small number of apples.
A fast internet account gives you the capability to download large amounts of data and then the ISP artificially limits you to a small fraction of that amount.
Data is determined by speed.
I have a 30Mb account. That's 30 megabits a second, which works out to 3.75 megabytes a second. In other words, my account is capped at 3.75MB a second.
There are 60 seconds in a minute, so if you multiply 3.75MB by 60, you get 225MB. In other words, my account is capped at 225MB a minute.
There are 60 minutes in an hour, so if you multiply 225MB by 60, you get 13,500MB, or 13.18GB. In other words, my account is capped at 13.18GB an hour.
There are 24 hours in a day, so if you multiply 13.18GB by 24, you get 316.32GB. In other words, my account is capped at 316.32GB a day.
There are 30 days in the average month, so if you multiply 316.32GB by 30, you get 9,489.6GB or 9.27TB. In other words, my account is capped at 9.27TB a month.
In other words, my ISP knowingly sold me a service with the capability to download as much as 9.27TB in a single month.
If they were to impose a 300MB per month usage cap, they would be restricting my usage of the service to 3.33% of what it's capable of.
In other words, I would only be able to fill my basket to 1/3 of its total volume, completely negating the need for such a large basket in the first place.
P.S.
Can someone please explain to me why every email alert I get for this thread contains an invalid link? | |
|
| | Interesting I do think it is interesting that they have 1TB limits and their limits grow with speeds. Mediacom must have one of the most robust networks out there to blow Comcast and them out of the water with cap support.
I also find it interesting that such slow speeds have any cap at all. How many with such slow speed "abuse" a network? How in the world could someone with such slow speed abuse a node at all that would cause everyone on the node to suffer thus requiring bandwidth control (assuming they dont pay for more)?
Lastly, I find it very humorous that only 2% of their user's exceed the caps (which caps we dont know) and yet they need to cap all users as a result.
How many users per node exceed this cap?
How is having a cap going to stop congestion?
How is having a cap that allows them to continue on, just pay more, going to stop congestion? | |
| | | | Re: Interesting Because it's never been, and never will be about congestion.
Feel sorry for poor Mediacom. Mediacom isn't making enough money! | |
| |  pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 - putting caps on lower speeds, is just insane. Whenever a company states 'only 1-2% of the subs are the abusers'. Wouldn't you think that the other 99-98% don't need to be told 'here's a cap, even though you don't download as much, but just incase you do, we can charge you!' nonsense.
defending something like this, makes me believe this:
You're an owner of stock in said company.
A worker, either an exec, management or a low line worker. that has no choice, but to tout the company line.
Or just being a flag waving, fanboy.
Or just want to be opposite because it's fun to do so.
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.
posted in another thread in regarding caps. My problem has always been, why does 1 apple have to spoil the bunch. Maybe instead of lumping everyone together, how about you take care of those 1-2% of the users causing said 'problems'.
--
Fantasy football is Dungeons & Dragons for the guys who beat up kids that played D&D. | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Interesting Why do they need to take care of the 2% users? What if you kicked them off the network? Would 2% make any difference at peak periods? Would having their usage disappear allow slower backbone interconnects and would peering arrangements suddenly get cheaper?
IMO -- this is for when the 2% grows to 5, 10, 20 or even 40% of the subscriber base. Provider's are in a panic because they want to take a break and let the infrastructure rot instead of maintaining it so profits can rise. Meanwhile, the average worker's benefits are gutted causing their discretionary salary to actually decrease. Hey Johnny! You had a good year. Here's a 2.5% increase. Thanks the effort. Oh by the way, the medical premiums will be increased by 10% next year and the deductible is going up another $1,000. The employees also voted to end the Christmas party, we're installing mag-stripe readers on the coffee machines and you'll have to empty your own trash. Keep up the good work! There's management written all over you! Now get your ass back to work and answer those phones with a smile! | |
|
| | | If I was in the 2%, wouldn't this plan be a good thing for me? Instead of being capped at 250 GB per month, I now can choose from one of 3 packages with higher monthly allowances or another one that is exactly the same as my old cap. The upshot is that I never get capped. Granted I would have to pay for what I use above my monthly allowance, but they just removed the ceiling on my online activity (rather than shutting me down until next month). | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Interesting said by Rolla:If I was in the 2%, wouldn't this plan be a good thing for me? of course because 98% of that 2% uses less than 999 GB. | |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| What is really needed If you look at the typical family I would find it hard pressed that even a 15 Mbps link is needed. We always talk Netflix, but netflix only allows 2 streams per account. With the new tech they release a HD stream (720) takes up less than 2 Mbps, so even worst case we are talking about 4 Mbps for 2 streams. OK take two more 8 Mbps. At 15 Mbps you are talking about room left to spare. I was watching streams from the 80's and less than 250MB/hr. Netflix has come a long way. Amazon has some work to do.
Granted w/ a 30 link you can download 2x as fast, but is it worth $20/more -- not really and that's why they are introducing caps, to push people to higher tiers which is pure profit. Caps were created by the actuaries such that a very small % hit them today, but as they know internet grows 30% a year, so in 3 years 30% or more are hitting the honey pot, and who doesn't want $10-$20 more revenue for something that costs $.50 to produce. Pure profit.
I read in TWC that 80% of the people use "turbo" or lower which in my neck is 15/2. I know we are not typical people, but for the masses it works just fine....
They of course start the caps higher, and then the will raise rates on each tier, and lower the cap just like they did in Canada. I mean there you are lucky if you get 60 GB.
Caps do not equal network management, because there are no caps, just price overages. So how can they equate that to network management. What a BIG FAT LIE. Take a look at FCC, almost all of the carriers (sans Frontier) are hitting 100% at prime time WITHOUT NETWORK MANAGEMENT. And Comcase has their own "private internet" running over the same resource constrained pipe, just running on the teetering edge of collapse any second  | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | very fair caps Unless your a business, and then they have business plans for that as well.. While I hate caps in general, at least these are fair and reasonable caps put up by Mediacom. | |
| | | | Re: very fair caps said by jhamps10:Unless your a business, and then they have business plans for that as well.. While I hate caps in general, at least these are fair and reasonable caps put up by Mediacom.
reasonable and fair caps? oxymoron there ya big dummy | |
|
| | well this sux officially well this really sux now. If you are grandfathered in, you have 250GB cap says MediacomChad. So if you (like me) have the Ultra50, then in order to get the 999TB cap, you have to make the change. | |
| | | i misunderstood MediacomChad. Although you have the 250GB data allowance in place, since you had this service prior to 08/01 we do not have any plans to throttle, suspend, or charge for additional bandwidth once you reach that threshold. With the new plans although you have a 999GB data allowance, once you exceed that threshold you will have to purchase additional bandwidth at $10 per 50GB over, so at this time you are in a much better situation than if you were to change to the new terms. | |
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Still complaints Yes in an ideal world there wouldn't be caps. In an ideal world I'd have $1 billion and Mila Kunis too. That aint happening either.
350 GB for 20 Mbps is certainly better than what anyone else has out there. Most everyone else is stuck on 250 GB except Comcast which upped their caps to 300 GB. And the 999 GB cap, really no one should whine about that. Charter's 100 Mbps tier has a 500 GB cap. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
 EGeezerGo CatsPremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8 | Finally - competition. Oh, please, please, PLEASE let it come to our area! | |
| | | Slow My speeds with Mediacom were so slow that it would be impossible for me to reach any cap they set. I had the 12/2 package and could barely manage 1/1 on a good day. They said it was just normal network congestion and speeds were not guaranteed. Maybe they should focus on actually providing quality service before they worry about caps. I provide a higher quality and faster network with army (over satellite) equipment for my unit than this for profit company does for it's customers. | |
| | | | Re: Slow usually when ya get speeds that low is because overpacked nodes an routers. or oversold area's too. and when i use the term usually i mean 90% of the time in this situation. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Those are generous compared to Comcast or VZW I used to live in Mediacom territory (Iowa) and I miss their prices.
Comcast supposedly has a 250 GB cap (which they claim is suspended) and their prices are much higher. My cable bill went up a good $20 per month just by moving to Massachusetts. The reason I moved to Mass is my mother is originally from Springfield, Mass and she wanted to go back home as much as I now want to go back to Iowa. Everything here in Mass is twice as expensive as it is in Iowa (rent, utilities, groceries, etc).
VZW has a 4GB cap an the plan I selected and that goes between an iPhone, iPad, Jetpack, and two dumb phones. | |
| | | Rate Caps I've been with MediaCom for 6 years now, and paid 74.95 /mo for the "Max" Plan. When I contacted MediaCom, they told me that I have a 350GB Cap as of 8/1. They said to refer to the FCC Filing on their website. When I went looking for the FCC release, I couldn't find it. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Windstream
| Re: Rate Caps Meanwhile, folks in Japan and Korea are enjoying 20-60 mbps speeds, with more generous or no caps. America, land of the not-so-free ;p
(Granted, it's a lot easier to wire a smaller country).
Lots of litigation concering caps/throttling. For a sample: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | If it won't have much impact... ...why do it?
Hmmmm.... | |
|
| |
|
|
