1 recommendation |
Intranet vs. InternetPublic Knowledge seems to not understand why Comcast's own content doesn't have caps even though caps really don't fix the undersupported infrastructure of Comcast's Internet lines. | |
|
 | | |
Re: Intranet vs. InternetTHERE IS NO REASON FOR THESE CAPS
they have 8 downstream chanenls | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Intranet vs. InternetLast I checked Comcast subscribers didn't subscribe to the "Comcast Intranet" package. Please send me a link to where that exists.
How do television only subscribers get access to this content? Through your imagined Comcast Intranet right? No.... wait.... they have to be subscribed to INTERNET service.
Looks like you don't get it. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Intranet vs. InternetThe Xfinity on demand pay per view content already exists on network as the content doesn't exist on outside of the Comcast's internal network (aka the Internet). Think of it like a large Local Area Connection.
I'm heavily against caps as I already said before they don't solve Internet congestion. I just find it a poor argument to argue on this. If Netflix has its content within Comcast's internal network, then there's a problem.
Content hoarding and licensing will be a large problem to solve. If only competition existed to force companies to improve their infrastructure... | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Intranet vs. InternetI would agree, this is a problem to solve.
However, what you are arguing would amount to Comcast doing 1 of 2 things.
1.) Have any bandwidth heavy services (any popular services really) put servers in the Comcast Intranet. Which more than likely would not be free and would be at Comcast's sole discretion and not available to all (big or small / direct competitor or not).
2.) Comcast finds a way to charge extra for the delivery of content their users request from companies that wont do #1 or that Comcast deems not important enough to allow option #1.
Next I would ask, is NBC's network really part of Comcast network physically AND logically? Does it cross ANY public internet portion through peering at all or is it dedicated circuit in the same IP block as Comcast?
.
.
.
.
Well what do you know? Caps do #2 now, don't they? Comcast certainly has those. | |
|
| | | |  skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170 |
to HaloFans
Any congestion is last mile from Comcast not dedicating enough channel space to HSI allowing saturation if you have a bunch of simultaneous users. Congestion at the headend is a myth. | |
|
| | | | |  bemis
Premium Member
join:2008-07-18
united state |
bemis
Premium Member
2012-Aug-2 7:33 am
Re: Intranet vs. Internetsaid by skeechan:Any congestion is last mile from Comcast not dedicating enough channel space to HSI allowing saturation if you have a bunch of simultaneous users. Congestion at the headend is a myth.
Does Comcast pay $0 for connecting their network to the internet? You get bread sticks for free with your meal, but that doesn't mean they cost the restaurant anything. | |
|
| | | | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Aug-2 8:19 am
Re: Intranet vs. InternetYeah they pay 0%, customers pay 100% plus gobs more. Cost per GB is mere pennies while customers are paying $50+/mo. | |
|
| | | |
to JigglyWiggly
The reason for the caps is to:
(1) deter bandwidth intensive uses (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, file sharing, etc.) to
(2) marginalize the appeal of online entertainment alternatives while ensuring a continuing stream of revenue for those that opt against a cable sub.
While imposing caps doesn't eliminate all competition - satellite & telco - it does essentially take away the most viable option for those wishing to rein in extraneous expenses and become cord-cutters. | |
|
| | bemis
Premium Member
join:2008-07-18
united state |
to JigglyWiggly
said by JigglyWiggly:THERE IS NO REASON FOR THESE CAPS
they have 8 downstream chanenls
It's not about bandwidth from your house to their network anymore, it's about internet use. Speed tiers are about dealing with connections from house to their network. Caps are about dealing their network to the internet.... that does cost them money you know... | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to HaloFans
I thought that the last mile is where all of the congestion occurs and that is why caps are necessary? Isn't the last mile a part of Comcast's internal network? | |
|
| |
1 edit
1 recommendation |
Re: Intranet vs. InternetDo not bring logic and facts into this conversation!
Shhh.... there are people here that don't want to deal with those things. | |
|
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 3:12 pm
GoodI hope they win this, caps are stupid and just a money grab from people who want alternatives from TV tiers, it's another way of saying "You're going to pay me for TV if you watch it from me or not" /sigh we'll see what the future has to bring.
Matt | |
|
| 25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2012-Aug-1 3:25 pm
Re: GoodComcast has the most money. and this group just needs more $$$ to support their "interests". And Comcast defines their network in their TOS. | |
|
| | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
1 recommendation |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 3:52 pm
Re: Goodsaid by 25139889:Comcast has the most money. and this group just needs more $$$ to support their "interests". And Comcast defines their network in their TOS.
That doesn't mean there can't be a victory here, I'll admit that money wins lawsuits 90% of the time, however really all of this is just proving how anti-competitive caps are, or at least caps under 500GB a month. Now yes I know, most people don't even reach 250GB, however if they don't have the opportunity to try, then how will they ever know? And with ever expanding video options on line, really the caps will have to be modified eventually, especially when we'll be able to stream Blu-Ray quality movies straight to our PC. Matt P.S. this isn't meant to sound like an argument, just the flip side of the coin  | |
|
| | | |
to 25139889
said by 25139889:And Comcast defines their network in their TOS. LOL, I guess you are one of those people that thinks a TOS is etched in stone and just because it says it in there that is how it is. Sorry to say, but you are wrong. Many times judges have ruled that TOS statements are not enforceable. As a matter of fact didnt we just have a story on that here the other day or was that another site? | |
|
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:I hope they win this, caps are stupid
Hate to break it to you even if they "win" Comcast can still have caps. The only difference is Comcast will have to count their stuff too. hardly a "win". | |
|
| | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 5:31 pm
Re: Goodsaid by 88615298:said by mmay149q:I hope they win this, caps are stupid
Hate to break it to you even if they "win" Comcast can still have caps. The only difference is Comcast will have to count their stuff too. hardly a "win". Who is going to want to use their online services if there's a cap? Broadband users with no cable TV subscription won't be able to use it, if you already have TV services why use the internet streaming videos unless you're at work, and for a quick news update? It will be a substantial loss for the companies ROI/revenue/etc, which in turn they will either A.) Lower the caps to punish customers, B.) Raise the caps to support their own content (win) or C.) Get rid of the caps all together as it's hurting their business model (another win) I know, I talk smack about caps often, and in my opinion they are useless, (or at least a $50 connection fee plus $10 per 50GB overages is useless) If they really wanted to charge by usage, then they need a $5 - $10 connection fee, plus $10 per 50GB, or $10 per 100GB overages for consumers, instead of substantially overpricing the cost of a GB of data, any even non-technical person can look up the cost of a 4TB drive, round off to 4,000GB's and then see the cost of the drive and tell the true cost of a GB and see they are getting screwed. (It comes to 0.1324975 cents per GB, 0.12939208984375 if you use 4096GB's) Either way, doesn't really matter, I'm just not a fan of being ripped off, as most consumers aren't, and as such I will always speak out for unfairness. Matt | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Aug-1 5:53 pm
Re: Goodsaid by mmay149q:Who is going to want to use their online services if there's a cap? Most people because A) Most won't hit the cap B) There aren't other options in most cases. | |
|
| | | | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 5:59 pm
Re: Goodsaid by 88615298:said by mmay149q:Who is going to want to use their online services if there's a cap? Most people because A) Most won't hit the cap B) There aren't other options in most cases. I don't know how accurate this could be with family house holds of 3 or more. Depends on the TV shows, there's plenty of other options on ways to attain your media. Matt | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Aug-1 7:13 pm
Re: Goodsaid by mmay149q:said by 88615298:said by mmay149q:Who is going to want to use their online services if there's a cap? Most people because A) Most won't hit the cap B) There aren't other options in most cases. I don't know how accurate this could be with family house holds of 3 or more. Depends on the TV shows, there's plenty of other options on ways to attain your media. Matt Unfortunately you think yourself and many that post here are "typical" households. we're not. The fact is if you go by Comcast own data( yeah I know who is to say how accurate it is ) less than 2% go over 250 GB. So how many are going to go over 300 GB? I will say the most I've used in one month was 250 GB. In fact most times it's under 200 GB. | |
|
| | | | | | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 8:00 pm
Re: Goodsaid by 88615298:Unfortunately you think yourself and many that post here are "typical" households. we're not.
The fact is if you go by Comcast own data( yeah I know who is to say how accurate it is ) less than 2% go over 250 GB. So how many are going to go over 300 GB? I will say the most I've used in one month was 250 GB. In fact most times it's under 200 GB.
I don't think that my household is typical, I KNOW my household is heavy users. What I'm trying to get at is today's heavy user is tomorrow's normal behavior. Here's the problems I see: 1.) 250 - 300 GB of data for all of your devices, IN a family where there are 3 + people that's POSSIBLY a cell phone offloading to WiFi for each person (since they only get 2GB, or whatever to share) So that COULD BE up to 6 devices. If 2 of those devices are owned by at teenager, you can bet that more time will be spent on those devices surfing, streaming, downloading, etc. This is normal for kids these days. 2.) 20 cents per GB when it costs the company way less than that to provide 1 GB of data, going off what it costs per GB for hard drives (since the company won't release proof of the cost to provide a GB to a customer) 3.) As more people innovate, and start using cloud services and streaming/downloading video (HD quality) or audio, especially for multiple devices, the cap becomes less and less... this is the FUTURE and ComCast is not preparing for it. Sure today most people may not use 200GB, but what about 10 years from now when every smartphone has a cloud service for backup purposes plan you can purchase (My Samsung Galaxy SIII is offered up to 120GB's for $9.99 a month) and it has over 100GB of space with half of it used? And what happens when the carriers offer "no counting against caps" for these services where other providers of this type of service may not be chosen due to the count against caps. What happens when people start using more and more services, and then hacking their neighbors WiFi network because they are running low on their monthly cap (you can find videos on YouTube on how to do this with certain versions of Linux) What happens when more people start innovating and offering HD video streaming services that stream more than 6Mbps per HD stream? Or when multiple people in 1 house stream more than 1 HD stream at a time? What happens to the starving YouTube artist/producers/etc that upload huge video files multiple times a week? Or musical artists in general that upload their content to places like reverbnation.com to show to their fans, but yet hardly make any cash off this? See that's the problem with caps, they can't answer the questions or possibilities of tomorrow, they can only answer what's happening today. Matt | |
|
| | | | | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Aug-1 10:24 pm
Re: Goodsaid by mmay149q:Sure today most people may not use 200GB, but what about 10 years from now when every smartphone has a cloud service for backup purposes plan you can purchase (My Samsung Galaxy SIII is offered up to 120GB's for $9.99 a month) and it has over 100GB of space with half of it used? And what happens when the carriers offer "no counting against caps" for these services where other providers of this type of service may not be chosen due to the count against caps.
What happens when people start using more and more services, and then hacking their neighbors WiFi network because they are running low on their monthly cap (you can find videos on YouTube on how to do this with certain versions of Linux)
What happens when more people start innovating and offering HD video streaming services that stream more than 6Mbps per HD stream? Or when multiple people in 1 house stream more than 1 HD stream at a time?
What happens to the starving YouTube artist/producers/etc that upload huge video files multiple times a week? Or musical artists in general that upload their content to places like reverbnation.com to show to their fans, but yet hardly make any cash off this?
See that's the problem with caps, they can't answer the questions or possibilities of tomorrow, they can only answer what's happening today.
Matt
Well TODAY the vast majority are unaffected by these caps. In 10 years you would hope that Comcast and other ISPs up their caps within that time. Will they? Who knows, but the time to worry about that is in 10 years. As far as the starving artists. well that's why they are starving always has been that way. They'll just need to get an uncapped business account. By the way Youtube DOES pay people that upload videos. | |
|
| | | | | | | | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 10:55 pm
Re: GoodThat's the problem, looking at today instead of tomorrow, if we are preparing for today instead of preparing for tomorrow, then tomorrow when it's needed we'll be screwed...
Matt
P.S. You're telling people that pay $50 a month for the same speed as the $300 a month business account that they need to pay $300 a month when their "music career" may only bring them $600 a month... That's like Mercedes selling you the top of the line new 2013 model, and then saying if you want all the luxury features to work you have to pay $10,000 more than what the car is worth..... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Aug-2 2:07 am
Re: Goodsaid by mmay149q:P.S. You're telling people that pay $50 a month for the same speed as the $300 a month business account that they need to pay $300 a month when their "music career" may only bring them $600 a month... That's like Mercedes selling you the top of the line new 2013 model, and then saying if you want all the luxury features to work you have to pay $10,000 more than what the car is worth.....
Comcast uncapped business accounts don't cost $300/month. You might want to check your hyperbole before posting. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-2 12:57 pm
Re: Goodsaid by elray:said by mmay149q:P.S. You're telling people that pay $50 a month for the same speed as the $300 a month business account that they need to pay $300 a month when their "music career" may only bring them $600 a month... That's like Mercedes selling you the top of the line new 2013 model, and then saying if you want all the luxury features to work you have to pay $10,000 more than what the car is worth.....
Comcast uncapped business accounts don't cost $300/month. You might want to check your hyperbole before posting. That's the cost of TWC business class here in Dallas Texas, nowhere did I state that was the cost of Comcast Business Class. Matt | |
|
| | | Tdahl7
Premium Member
join:2012-02-04
Phoenix, AZ |
to mmay149q
How does the cost of storage, eg "a Drive". Equate to the cost of transport, aka; bandwidth. | |
|
| | | | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2012-Aug-2 12:58 pm
Re: Goodsaid by Tdahl7:How does the cost of storage, eg "a Drive". Equate to the cost of transport, aka; bandwidth.
It was just a used example since the ISP's don't put out proof of what it costs per GB to send data, it's about all any consumer can do to get an idea really. Matt | |
|
LinkP
join:2003-05-11
San Jose, CA |
LinkP
Member
2012-Aug-1 3:37 pm
Olympics coverage tooSeems to me that NBC's requirement that one subscribe to a cable/sat service to view the streaming Olympics coverage is also an example of the negative effects of the NBC/Comcast merger, as it leaves broadcast viewers out in the cold. | |
|
| | |
cowboyro
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 4:28 pm
Re: Olympics coverage toosaid by LinkP:Seems to me that NBC's requirement that one subscribe to a cable/sat service to view the streaming Olympics coverage [...]
There is no such REQUIREMENT. Anyone can view it. Pick any provider from the list, enter a dummy address such as hfdsfjhgsdj@jhdfdhfghjdsfjhdsgfhjds.com to get your pass and watch freely... | |
|
| |  MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ |
Morac
Member
2012-Aug-1 4:53 pm
Re: Olympics coverage toosaid by cowboyro:said by LinkP:Seems to me that NBC's requirement that one subscribe to a cable/sat service to view the streaming Olympics coverage [...]
There is no such REQUIREMENT. Anyone can view it. Pick any provider from the list, enter a dummy address such as hfdsfjhgsdj@jhdfdhfghjdsfjhdsgfhjds.com to get your pass and watch freely... That's only good for 4 hours. | |
|
| | | | |
cowboyro
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 5:39 pm
Re: Olympics coverage toosaid by Morac:said by cowboyro:said by LinkP:Seems to me that NBC's requirement that one subscribe to a cable/sat service to view the streaming Olympics coverage [...]
There is no such REQUIREMENT. Anyone can view it. Pick any provider from the list, enter a dummy address such as hfdsfjhgsdj@jhdfdhfghjdsfjhdsgfhjds.com to get your pass and watch freely... That's only good for 4 hours. And then you get another 4, another 4... | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to LinkP
Yes, being that NBC is broadcast free OTA in pretty much the entire country this requirement should have gotten a legal assault right out of the gate.
There is absolutely no sound reason for this requirement beyond them trying to protect their paid services. | |
|
| |  Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA |
Ebolla
Member
2012-Aug-2 3:11 pm
Re: Olympics coverage tooIt is only "required" if you don't want it to time out after 4 hours. And since this is able to be done with any provider not just comcast this has nothing to do with the merger. | |
|
| |
NO to ESPN
Anon
2012-Aug-1 3:39 pm
This Might Be the Least of COMCASTs ProblemsThere is indication that some of their infrastructure is having problems and being replaced. This cannot help the bottom line. Rumor is that some of the recent digital cable system components are being replaced prematurely. Specific comment was "traps being replaced with Motorola units by independent contractor." Have any of you heard of similar discussion? | |
|
| |
YawnWhen was the last time that cable followed through on ANY regulatory promise? | |
|
 maartenaElmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA |
maartena
Premium Member
2012-Aug-1 3:53 pm
This could go the wrong way....Comcast: "Fine, then we'll just charge for all video services the same way. Comcast/NBC streams are henceforth INCLUDED in the cap." Ouch. Unintended result.  | |
|
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Aug-1 5:15 pm
Re: This could go the wrong way....said by maartena:Comcast: "Fine, then we'll just charge for all video services the same way. Comcast/NBC streams are henceforth INCLUDED in the cap."
Ouch. Unintended result.
That is exactly what will happen. People think there is some magical option where Comcast gets rid of the caps. Um sorry people won't happen. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to maartena
So be it! Fair is fair right? | |
|
| |
Comcast and the other cable companiesPay the FCC good money to allow them to ignore rules and agreements. The FCC will ignore the complaint from Public Knowledge. | |
|
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Aug-1 4:04 pm
illogical thinkingOK I get that people want NO caps whatsoever but Comcast CAN do that. That being the case having Comcast exempt their own stuff is actually better than having to count their own stuff. If they have to count their own stuff people will hit their caps faster and are more likely to incur overages. Which means people are MORE likely to drop things like Netflix which I'm sure is the exact opposite of what Netflix wants. If they think by forcing Comcast to count it's own stuff that they'll just drop the caps or raise then well that's just naïve thinking. Some people want to cut their nose to spite their face. | |
|
|
•••••••• |
| |
I find this a very strange argumentSo let's see. You WANT Comcast to impose caps and overage fees on THEIR OWN CONTENT delivered and managed on THEIR OWN LOCAL NETWORK? Just because it happens to be delivered in IP packets as opposed to proprietary protocols? WTF????
several things wrong with this:
(a) just because it's IP doesn't mean it's Internet
(b) why would you, a putatively "consumer-protecting" organization, call for Comcast to charge its customers MORE for the SAME CONTENT, because of some principle?
(c) -- (a) and (b) together indicate that only an idiot, or someone with a hidden agenda, would make this argument.
So, assuming they are not idiots, what's the hidden agenda?
CAPS R BAD, M'K?? -- there it is in a nutshell | |
|
|
••••••••••• |
| |
can O'wormsthe outcome of this can O'worms is really in the DOJ's court of non-enforcement... many of these non-enforcement legacy policies of the Geroge W Bush administration have just been rubber stamped by Obama's fed... that top-down review of all agencies was a load of horse manure.. because if they feel they did a good job reviewing all directives and policies with regards to major companies such as telecom, they are full of it..
Just kill the caps before the smell reaches DOJ and it creates an itch they intend to scratch.. or raise them so high, you shut alot of people up! | |
|
| | |
JamminR
Anon
2012-Aug-2 1:33 am
Re: can O'wormsI have a Roku. Cut TV cord, kept internet.
Watch 2-3 hours of streaming shows a day. (netflix/amazon/hulu, others)
Weekends more.
1 other major 'net geek in the house.
3 PCs, 2 smartphones.
Net gaming
Remote work occasionally (not enough to cover business tier cost)
Cloud backup and storage (soon to be more)
I average 200gb a month.
Sometimes less.
Usually more.
I'm not saying caps should necessarily disappear.
I'm agreeing with others...current caps are too low for innovation.
Tomorrow is already here for many.
I've checked with my neighbors...the 3 households I checked with average 150gb (not as net geek as us).
As they to grow online service oriented ( cloud storage, online game delivery, etc), that cap will quickly be reached. | |
|
| |
Twaddle
Anon
2012-Aug-2 10:04 am
What is realistic data usage?IO subscribe to U-verse for the TV phone and Internet. I also subscribe to NetFlix for DVD rentals. At almost 300.00 a month for IP phone 450 channels (90% garbage) and an internet performance that "sorta" supports three HD TVs I wonder just how much data it would take to support this under the Comcast model. one streamed movie and several streamed hour long tv shows per night plus some Internet usage might very well reach and exceed 300 GBs-Anyone out there who can comment on just how much data is really consumed by HD TV and video on an hourly basis? Sorry for my ignorance. I've read that a one hour HD video stream is about 2 GB of data or a netflix 2 hr movie is about 3.4 GB. one movie a night for 30 days is about 102 GB and then there is Television programming on three TVs plus additional internet usage. Seems to me 250-300 GB is not that big of a cap in the big sceme of things. | |
|
| | |
Re: What is realistic data usage?said by Twaddle :IO subscribe to U-verse for the TV phone and Internet. I also subscribe to NetFlix for DVD rentals. At almost 300.00 a month for IP phone 450 channels (90% garbage) and an internet performance that "sorta" supports three HD TVs I wonder just how much data it would take to support this under the Comcast model. one streamed movie and several streamed hour long tv shows per night plus some Internet usage might very well reach and exceed 300 GBs-Anyone out there who can comment on just how much data is really consumed by HD TV and video on an hourly basis? Sorry for my ignorance. I've read that a one hour HD video stream is about 2 GB of data or a netflix 2 hr movie is about 3.4 GB. one movie a night for 30 days is about 102 GB and then there is Television programming on three TVs plus additional internet usage. Seems to me 250-300 GB is not that big of a cap in the big sceme of things.
Realistic data usage seems to be whatever one person thinks...hence why so many disagree about what is "realistic" I am not sure why so many continue acting like because they don't use this or that service....that others should not either and that anyone who therefore does...is abusing the system. Much like how people are called "heavy users" for going over.....2gbs with cell-phones though reaching 2gb within a month (or a week) seems to become easier every day. | |
|
|
|
